, 2 min read
Will emerging artificial intelligence boost research productivity?
2 thoughts on “Will emerging artificial intelligence boost research productivity?”
, 2 min read
2 thoughts on “Will emerging artificial intelligence boost research productivity?”
I largely agree with what you said, even though it’s hard to feel the optimistic outlook at this point in time. We’ll have to struggle through a lot of watered down articles before the research community shifts the values.
I speculate that there are more pragmatic reasons why OpenAI publishes on Arxiv rather than, say, NIPS. Partly, this is a way to avoid the need to adhere to the conference/journal’s timelines, which is a big deal if they want to outpace other big tech companies. Partly, in consequence of the above, to minimize the risk of rejection and the need to re-submit and wait again. Some of their work (e.g. Whisper) is not super rigorous and it could harm their image to see reviewers pushing back over non-reproducibility and lack of relevant details. Partly, to keep the control over the publicity that accompanies their recent releases.
I have no doubt the researchers of OpenAI are interested in advancing the science. I am not sure that, if given the choice, they would prefer Arxiv over prestigious journals in 100% of the cases.
Course correction takes a long time, but the criticism against our model started a long time ago and they have been intensifying with every passing year.
Regarding your disagreement, I bring you back to my statement which is: ” In other words, the researchers at OpenAI seem more concerned with advancing the science than by playing a “publication game”.” I think that I am likely correct.