Official documentations are not always complete. It depends on the diligence of who wrote them and how good they are at writing. Customers and users will always send mails or open tickets to ask this and that about the docs afterwards. Can't rely on just learning or retrieving from the docs. Clarifications by some dev or someone who found a solution/workaround will always be required.
If people are withdrawing from writing secondary documentation, why wouldn't they also withdraw from writing official documentation?
And don't say they wouldn't, we've already watched business decisions be made to pull back on spending to produce official documentation as the availability of the internet grew to the point vendors understood that everyone has always-online internet connections.
Reminds me of the crypto bubble. All the defi shitcoins giving yields to each other while no shitcoin actually generated real value or had real demand. Now everyone building LLM libraries and systems but very few LLM products yield real value
There's a big difference cost-wise: anybody can deploy an Ethereum fork, mine the resultant shitcoin very cheaply and start a Discord for marketing purposes. That's the whole product right there.
The same is not true of AI projects which require a lot more upfront investment.
The author of that tweet clearly has an issue with the arxiv being an open repository where everyone can upload anything. There is nothing about open access in the tweet. And arxiv is not same as the concept or movement of open access. Most articles on Arxiv doesn't even have a proper license to fulfill the definition of Open Access in the BOAI declaration.
Further proof that the authors tweet is not about or against open access is that she publishes open access herself:
Arxiv is open access prepublication, and doesn't remove the need for peer review to get into actual journals. If you apply for a grant and you say "I was published on Arxiv" you are not getting that grant.
Additionally, Arxiv won't kick you off their platform if you post a preprint there, and then you get published in Nature.
In other words, the reason it does not change the point is that Arxiv does not weaken the publication process for the actual journals the preprint will be submitted to. You still need peer review to get published and you are still incentivised to do just that.
You could argue 'preprints ARE publishing' but I'd need to be convinced of that point because I don't agree for the reasons stated above.
The context is that the author of the tweet hates fast paced open research (which IMO is a net good for humanity) and makes up the strawman `"can't keep up" + "anything older than 6 months is irrelevant" in CS` quotes to justify that position.
There's timeless beauty in CS, but there's also a lot more fertile ground for research in CS, given how young the field is compared to the older sciences.
I’ve hosted a few free services over the past 2 years. They are just utilities, nothing controversial, yet there are DDOS attacks ever few weeks from some Chinese IP ranges (especially Alibaba). Ended up just blocking the ASN as the JA3 fingerprints were spoofed and they were sending legitimate looking data (thus difficult to identify and block)
Looks like DeepMind will no longer be able to pursue academic research with the pressure to monetize. Talent exodus could happen similar to what happened at Google AI where many prominent researchers either went to OpenAI or started their own companies
Agreed. I'm seeing multiple other comments here suggesting DeepMind was somehow a waste when they have done a lot of very impressive research. "Solving" protein folding. Retrieval transformers. Novel solutions to math problems using ML? What about beating fucking Lee Sedol in go? No? None of that matters? C'mon.
Those are towering achievements that don't add to Google as a business. It was an important part of Google's reputation, but now that reputation is in the mud as Microsoft and OpenAI become king in the eyes of the public.
Arguably none of that made a comparable difference to the life of a common man as ChatGPT did. It's necessary to do fundamental research, but imperative to maintain focus on delivering real world value to real world people.
Do you know if there's a list of such companies floating around? Really curious to see where the research talent in the space is heading, especially if they're leaving the warm embrace of their BigCo...
