Peer review is the discriminator for the papers. Time to apply neural nets to reviewing process?https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1137421482340913152 …
-
Show this thread
-
If we can build a better discriminator than current peer review, then generated papers will potentially have higher quality than current real ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Saigarich
The quality of a scientific contribution lies in exactly the bits that cannot yet be predicted automatically from the previous ones.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I don't think "prediction" is right word, that information already existed, it just wasn't formulated or recognized.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Plinz
Can we shift observer function to something we can't fully understand or predict ourselves?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Plinz
The more I think about what I had in mind, the less sense it makes. Thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Saigarich @Plinz
At the end there's no way to distinguish "random noise" from useful knowledge, that is exactly the question of quality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The goal is the construction of a comprehensive civilizational intellect, a Tower of Babel. GPT-2 may help to distinguish it from a tower of babbel.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.