UlyssesT to The Dredge Tank • edit-29 days ago*Permanently Deleted*trashmessage-squaremessage-square10 fedilinkarrow-up178file-text
arrow-up178message-square*Permanently Deleted*trashUlyssesT to The Dredge Tank • edit-29 days agomessage-square10 Commentsfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareiridaniotter [she/her]hexbear10·edit-22 months agoYes that's already being done and while it will kill LLMs, it's not very good for people who read or do science. link
minus-squareHexboare [they/them]hexbear10·2 months agoThe field really needs to die and be reborn. The journal model is a relic of a time when only 200 million people could read and write. Publication output has gone from 1 million in 2000 to 2 million in ~2010, with 3.3 million publications produced in 2022. If LLMs heighten the contradictions of the political economy of science and push it towards a new model, I won't be upset about it. link
minus-squarehuf [he/him]hexbear2·2 months agoIt won't kill llms, but it'll make curating the training data the most expensive and laborious part. No more freebies like feeding the entire internet into it link
Yes that's already being done and while it will kill LLMs, it's not very good for people who read or do science.
The field really needs to die and be reborn. The journal model is a relic of a time when only 200 million people could read and write.
Publication output has gone from 1 million in 2000 to 2 million in ~2010, with 3.3 million publications produced in 2022.
If LLMs heighten the contradictions of the political economy of science and push it towards a new model, I won't be upset about it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It won't kill llms, but it'll make curating the training data the most expensive and laborious part. No more freebies like feeding the entire internet into it