kukkeliskuu

That may well be the case. My suspicion is that many research papers would not pass such a quality review. I am not saying anything about their usefulness, though.

You are not suggesting it, but as some might, I want to emphasize that I think it is, really, really, really bad idea to argue for limiting exposure of the bad practices because the papers may be useful even when not following good practices.

The science can work only when we can trust that the foundation it has been built on, including previous research, is solid.

The trust is partly based on the fact that science is self-correcting. As we know from charge of electron measurements, the existing narrative can work against the self-correction, even when everybody is trying to be as truthful as possible.

My impression is that to a large extend, on many fields, publication numbers (and money) have become so important that self-correction process may have become broken.

Extend this beyond review. The most value we would get is from quality checking existing published papers.

It can be turned around as well, for validating existing research, creating a bot that checks papers against all the well-known logical fallacies, issues with statistical methods, checks the images etc.

Even if for most areas and most partner dances, there are less leaders than followers, this is not universally true. For instance in Turkey and Buenos Aires, there are many tourists of both sexes, while local women are culturally biased not to participate while local men are culturally biased to participate, hence creating a different gender balance.

The writer appears to touch one important point. Many of us are mind-oriented, have lost touch with our emotional and physical side. For us, body is just for moving brain around.

While we all have all of the sides, for such a person, other sides are atrophied from under-utilization, while mind is hyper-trophied from overuse for for things it is not so good at. The primary obstacle for a person like that is to start developing the atrophied sides.

If this is the case, the best way to start is with the simplest possible partner dance, because mind-oriented people naturally approach learning complex body movements through mind, which is exactly the opposite you need to be doing.

So something where steps are one step per beat, like Swedish bugg.

One idea I had for getting to the tail: filter out sites that appear to use SSO.

> But what really gets me is the model often tries to make assumptions for me that I didn't specify in the prompt.

When the LLM writes a description of a codebase, you are doing transformation from more semantic meaning to less semantic meaning, and you by definition lose some details.

When you go from requirements to code, transformation is from from less semantic meaning to more semantic meaning. The the missing semantic meaning has to be invented. When inventing the missing semantic meaning, the success depends on what the LLM has trained on.

The words "management" and "leadership" are used to convey many kinds of meaning, so I think it is important to elaborate carefully what we mean when we say that "working with LLMs is more like <x>".

For me, one of the most important aspects of leadership is having a long-term vision, and being able to communicate it. In other words, it answers the question of WHAT.

One of the most important aspects of management is being able to organize resources to materialize that vision. In other words, it answers the questions of WHO and WHEN.

We still need to answer the question of HOW -- which require the expertise -- architecture and implementation.

All of these elements are necessary when doing anything -- even by myself -- but become even more important when using many external resources to do it -- be it a team of people or a team of LLMs.

In many of my LLM projects, I have been using DSLs for all kinds of purposes. As many of these projects, data is kind of central, I use Django. So for these DSLs, hy (lisp combined with python) has been working quite well. I have not had trouble with Claude Code writing hy code.

I suspect many SEO practices could be detected automatically without LLMs: link farming typically uses cheaper domain names, commercial content might typically contain certain keywords, certain kind of tracking is more suspicious, affiliate links use known domains, etc.

The world needs an anti-SEO search engine, that explicitly penalizes for something that appears SEO.

Continuing on your suggestion.

There could be open source tooling to create custom private "closednets", with

- trust ring mechanism to allow invitations, flagging, banning, and banning those that invite people who were banned

- the rules of the closednet

- search engine with opt-in scraping

- portal (remember the 80s?) with all the registered nodes, perhaps by service category such as public git repo hosts, web sites etc.

etc.

The first closednet could be Hacker News.

There appears to be some underlying principles between intermediate representations and possible, reliable transformations.

Intermediate representations are often used to keep the architecture more manageable -- in compilers, for example. But these internal representations appear to increase expressability, which goes beyond the architecture.

For example, software development development cycle has several transformations: from requirements to user stories to design, and then to code. The stages are getting a revival, because they appear to be helpful when working with LLMs.

If we think LLMs as transformation machines, the transformation is reliable to the extent the source internal representation can capture the explicit semantics. The less LLM needs to make up in the content, the more reliable the end result.

This is close to how LISPers approach coding: invent a DSL for what you want to do, implement it in your DSL, and then implement the DSL. This approach seems to work well when creating systems that use LLMs.