What the commenter is saying pertains to the _decision_ to use Android. That is why this is happening. That is NVidia.

Such decisions cannot be reversed on a whim.

I look at this as the equivalent of writing a MUD as you ladder up to greater capabilities. MUDs are a good educational task.

Similarly AIs are just putzing around right now. As they become more capable they can be thrown at bigger and bigger problems.

This dynamic would create even more gate-keeping using credentials, which is already a problem with academia.

Totally agree!

I feel like this means that working in any group where individuals compete against each other results in an AI vs AI content generation competition, where the human is stuck verifying/reviewing.

> Totally agree!

Not a dig on your (very sensible) comment, but now I always do a double take when I see anyone effusively approving of someone else's ideas. AI turned me into a cynical bastard :(

It feels generally a bit dangerous to use an AI product to work on research when (1) it's free and (2) the company hosting it makes money by shipping productized research

I am not so skeptical about AI usage for paper writing as the paper will be often public days after anyways (pre-print servers such as arXiv).

So yes, you use it to write the paper but soon it is public knowledge anyway.

I am not sure if there is much to learn from the draft of the authors.

I think the goal is to capture high quality training data to eventually create an automated research product. I could see the value of having drafts, comments, and collaboration discussions as a pattern to train the LLMs to emulate.

Why do you think these points would make the usage dangerous?

They have to monetize somehow...

I suppose in that position your head has lower elevation, allowing for better circulation.

I got some errors trying to run this on my MBP. Claude was able to one-shot a fix.

``` Loaded speech tokenizer from ~/.cache/huggingface/hub/models--Qwen--Qwen3-TTS-12Hz-1.7B-VoiceDesign/snapshots/0e711a1c0aa5aad30654426 e0d11f67716c1211e/speech_tokenizer Fetching 11 files: 0%| | 0/11 [00:00<?, ?it/s]Fetching 11 files: 100%|| 11/11 [00:00<00:00, 125033.45it/s] The tokenizer you are loading from '!/.cache/huggingface/hub/models--Qwen--Qwen3-TTS-12Hz-1.7B-VoiceDesign/snapshots/0e711a1c0aa5aad30654426e0d11f67716c1211e' with an incorrect regex pattern: https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instr.... This will lead to incorrect tokenization. You should set the `fix_mistral_regex=True` flag when loading this tokenizer to fix this issue. ```

The problem is that nothing is immutable about computing. Software itself is mutable. So is data. The transferability of software makes hardware mutable also.

It seems like pen and paper is currently the best verifiable and immutable voting approach.

> The problem is that nothing is immutable about computing.

That's why we have checksums. We've used computing to put people on different astronomical bodies. There is a way, but it comes with a huge cost. Cryptocurrency strongly hints towards a way to make internet voting viable.

> It seems like pen and paper is currently the best verifiable and immutable voting approach.

The simplest answer is usually the best, but then you shouldn't constrain voting to a single day otherwise it disadvantages large swaths of the population.

It's a trade off as always. I agree though.

I wonder the same thing a lot. I also wonder how AI will fit into this problem.

There’s a sort of graph isomorphism problem of mapping APIs onto each other that seems solvable since a lot of them do the same thing but in different ways. Though it’d take something more keen on the minutiae than the LLMs for this I think