I think it's more of a problem of misaligned incentives rather than the method itself.
I think it's more of a problem of misaligned incentives rather than the method itself. There's a lot of room for politics, ass-covering, etc. Studies that fail to replicate something are shelved, even though they're useful information. Studies that indicate a negative, ditto. Studies are "nudged" to show something so the author can show that it wasn't a complete waste of time, etc. They're understandable, but they're bad for science.
Posted by StavrosK on Feb 21, 2015, 5:26 PM
Tags
Related issues
- This is my biggest problem with agents, they constantly defensively code for cases that have no chance of happening and in most cases a p...
- I wish there was something like LEAN for biology.
- The issue is really the extreme difficulty of programming them, especially for anything sequential (rather than combinatorial).
- I probably could have beared with it if it was only limited to programming, but it showing up in creative fields has made me feel all sor...
- I hate that I'm in deep enough to know what you mean.
- The biggest problem with “AI” is that big corps are shoving it down our throats.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.8,000 issues0 comments
reliability (Other)
This is my biggest problem with agents, they constantly defensively code for cases that have no chance of happening and in most cases a p...
I wish there was something like LEAN for biology.
The issue is really the extreme difficulty of programming them, especially for anything sequential (rather than combinatorial).
I probably could have beared with it if it was only limited to programming, but it showing up in creative fields has made me feel all sor...
I hate that I'm in deep enough to know what you mean.
The biggest problem with “AI” is that big corps are shoving it down our throats.
in the middel of a coding session with 5.6 sol.
[Hero Run] 535B-A23B on 18T tokens
I think it's more of a problem of misaligned incentives rather than the method itself.
I think it's more of a problem of misaligned incentives rather than the method itself. There's a lot of room for politics, ass-covering, etc. Studies that fail to replicate something are shelved, even though they're useful information. Studies that indicate a negative, ditto. Studies are "nudged" to show something so the author can show that it wasn't a complete waste of time, etc. They're understandable, but they're bad for science.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.