Recent searches
Search options
So, I wrote a paper, I'm sure it'll be accepted in Nature.
EDIT: added references and DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14283321
⁂ @1HommeAzerty, pure erudition, respect 
@1HommeAzerty Peer Review from Piaille College : true dat.
@1HommeAzerty Nope. You'd need to reference and list the "numerous scientific studies".
@TimWardCam @1HommeAzerty This.
I can recommend some to you. Most of them are mine, but dont bother. It'll help increase my impact factor.
@TimWardCam @1HommeAzerty
* Harvard / APA creeps around the corner*
@TimWardCam @1HommeAzerty ChatGPT has no problem inventing them. And make them sound plausible.
@1HommeAzerty might need to add some references
@1HommeAzerty you are an absolute master of brevity
@1HommeAzerty
Where are your footnotes?
@1HommeAzerty Please, don't write AI. What you mean is Deep Learning. Most of AI techniques do not emit more than any other techniques in computer science. Only Deep Learning is special in that context.
@FloRicx @1HommeAzerty Is Deep Learning per se actually the issue, or just large models?
@varx @1HommeAzerty well, Deep Learning is about learning large models, so... (including, but not limited to, LLMs)
@1HommeAzerty Made my day, than you !
@1HommeAzerty NGL you had me in the first half...
@1HommeAzerty @ryanbanderson reminds me of my favorite paper abstract ever https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832
@1HommeAzerty as reviewer 2, I say... yasssss! ACCEPT WITHOUT REVISION 
@1HommeAzerty Meisterwerk!
@1HommeAzerty that's bizarre as I was contemplating writing the same paper this morning!
@1HommeAzerty Peer review would request some references, though 
@1HommeAzerty c'est pas évident de prendre le système la main dans le sac, mais quand ça se produit, ça fait généralement assez mal. 
@1HommeAzerty
This may be accepted at sigbovik.
It is a shame that both "proved" and "proven" are valid past participles of "prove". Only "proven" should be allowed.
@luatic whomst’d’ven’t’d’t?
@1HommeAzerty tiens, d'ailleurs, ça me fait penser à la découverte de https://credit.niso.org il y a quelques années. Ça faisait un certain temps que des personnes réclamaient la mention des contributions individuelles dans les articles. On aura rapidement trouvé un moyen de vider l'initiative de sa substance et de la rendre inoffensive avec un vocabulaire contrôlé complètement creux... 
@1HommeAzerty You need to make up some references. 
@1HommeAzerty Making the machines sentient and armed could also really reduce the human carbon foot print ...
@1HommeAzerty Brilliant, but reviewer 2 is missing the bibliographical references, especially that one of himself saying that AI is very useful for correcting language.
@1HommeAzerty@mamot.fr not AI-related but you made me think of this ("Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List"): https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf
@1HommeAzerty *reviewer voice* this paper presents the answer to one of our great human problems, this is technically in scop of every conference. By the power vested in me by the Program Comitee and my advisor who I am subreviewing for, I place my vote to accept this paper. I also want to nominate this piece for the best paper award.
So, if I understand correctly, if we refrain from using AI, the environmental impact of AI will be diminished?
Quite an interesting and novel approach! 
@1HommeAzerty I love that it has that proper academic-paper TeX / Computer Modern typefaces look.
@1HommeAzerty Really would like to see this published to be perfectly honest.
The current proprietary software and SaaSS offerings are more like artificial stupidity - although they can churn out the stupidity faster than a human, it's arguably of lesser stupidity than what a human can pull off.
@1HommeAzerty To make it more findable... want to put it on arxiv.org?