Seems reasonable to me. Back when I started playing OpenTTD, about 20 years ago, you had to provide your own data files from your ostensibly legal copy of TTD. They changed that after they started distributing free alternative graphics, but to be frank the strict legal status of both OpenTTD and OpenRCT2 has always seemed mildly dubious to me, on account of both projects being based off disassembled code. Atari is being fairly reasonable and gentlemenly about this.
Do it. Build on the work of AwesomeWM probably, it's a Lua focused window manager that's quite nice. You can also build up less "minimalist" widgets and whatnot using Lua and claude code, which is very good at unconventional GUI work in Lua. I can attest to this specifically, I've had it build numerous GUIs with mpv Lua userscripts.
I'm not sure what experience anyone in this thread has with grad level research as a student/author, but I can assure you that heads roll over this kind of thing.
A professor's career is built on reputation, and that reputation is as strong as their students' (who do much of the "work" such as it is). It comes down to the professor, but this can be a career-ending moment for those students and I'm quite confident there were some very uncomfortable discussions as a result of this.
Depends on the field. One of the most influential papers in economics was found to be incorrectly constructed with signs pointing to just straight up fraud. Basically it didn't include data that it said it did, which when included reverses the conclusion. Then when the authors were called out, they doubled down offering up the explanation that the conclusion again reverses if you add a third set of cherry picked data, followed by dragging the person calling them out through the mud in a NY Times opinion piece.
Writing papers is exhausting, and if the data and results are real, then what's the problem? If the human author checked the output, is that not the same as a human writing the prose?
Everyone in the field will be doing this in a few years anyway. It's a shame that this Salem Witch Trial is happening for the early adopters.
If the findings are being fabricated or the paper isn't being reviewed and corrected by the author, that's a different story. But I'd be shocked if that were the case.
I consider LLMs to be a very useful tool and use them every day. But if I sign a slip of paper saying I won't use them for some project, and then use them anyway, not merely using them but copying without even the pretense of putting it into my own words, then that's fraud. LLMs being a tool is completely orthogonal to this fraud.
This comment doesn't seem to fit the discussion at all?
The discussion is not about humans using LLLs to write papers. It is about humans who agreed not to use LLVM in reviewing papers, then did exactly that.
There's a lot of irony in a defensive comment being written based on misreading / inattentive reading of a post about reviewing papers (requiring attentive reading).
In addition to being a reviewer, they also submitted their own research to this journal. So it leads to the question: if they were willing to cheat on the side of review with less incentive, why wouldn’t they cheat on the side that provides more incentives?
(Meaning, your career doesn’t get boosted much for reviewing papers, but much more so for publishing papers)
It might be that paper authors required others not to use LLMs for reviewing their work. Then, by the rule of reciprocity, they shouldn't use LLMs for reviewing others work. The article is unclear on whether this implied reciprocity rule was explicitly stated or not.
A hammer can be used to build a house, or to kill a person. We have a lot of history, law, and culture (likely more), around using tools like hammers so that we know what is good use vs what is bad. The above applies for many others tools as well.
LLMs can be very useful tools. However we also know there are a lot of bad uses and we are still trying to figure out where there are problems and where there are none.
Reading the article is exhausting. If I can leave a comment just as well without reading the article, then what's the problem? If I got something wrong, other people will point it out. That's a more efficient use of my time.
I was thinking this too, but I don't believe this is the case, and I feel like it would not be a good idea either.
Most of these people are likely students; this should be a learning moment, but I don't think it is yet grounds for their entire academic career to be crippled by being unable to publish in a top-tier ML venue.
If this is tolerated, it sends exactly the wrong kind of message. The students, if they are, should be banned for life. Let them serve as an example for myriads of future students, this will be a better outcome in the long run.
This didn't trip for people who were merely bouncing ideas off a LLM, they caught people who copy and pasted straight from their LLM.
It's not a fully consensus view, but a majority of sociologists agree that high severity deterrence has limited effectiveness against crime. Instead, certainty of enforcement is the most salient factor.
That's not true. People still pick up USB sticks from the street, people still fall for scam phone calls and people still click on links in mail.
Just because a method was successful once does not mean it was 'burned', none of these people will be checking each and every future pdf or passing it through a cleaner before they will do the same thing all over again and others are going to be 'virgin' and won't even be warned because this is not going to be widely distributed in spite of us discussing it here.
If anything you can take this as proof that this method is more or less guaranteed to work.
It makes honest people feel rewarded, valued and acknowledge. It teaches people who wish to follow the rules and conform to social norms what those norms are and where we actually draw the line in practice.
Looked at slightly differently, given a split between high trust and low trust preventing conversions from high to low is similarly important to inducing conversions from low to high.
Correct. We also have evidence both from cheating in sports and in academia that stiff punishments do not work. Many people hold the false belief that if it is easy to cheat then the punishments must be extremely severe to scare would be cheaters. It just does not work. Preventing cheating is way easier said than done.
> We also have evidence both from cheating in sports and in academia that stiff punishments do not work.
Maybe so, but there is evidence that lack of punishment also don't work.
Neither extreme "works". Just because terminal punishments do not prevent the worst cheating does not in any way imply that slap on the wrists reduce incidents of cheating.
Yup, precisely this. Doing something bad is rarely a rational commitment and cost of benefits. Likelihood and celerity of getting caught seem to be the driving factors.
Well, maybe they found themselves in the last hours of the deadline without the reviews done... in some cases due to procrastination, but in a few cases perhaps because life is hard and they just couldn't do it. So they used the LLM as a last resort to not go beyond deadline (which I assume maybe was penalized as well?)
To err is human, it makes sense that they are punished (and the harshest part of the punishment is not having a paper rejected, it's the loss of face with coauthors and others, BTW. Face is important in academia) but "for life" is way too much IMO.
This year, having their own submissions desk-rejected is strong enough of a signal that the policy has some teeth behind it. Let’s ban em for life next year.
I strongly feel that deterrence should be the goal here, not retribution IMO.
It has been shown time and again that, for most people, teaching them to be better and giving second chances is more effective than using forever-punishment as a warning for others.
This line of reasoning interests me because it seems to arise in other contexts as well.
Do very harsh punishments significantly reduce future occurrences of the offense in question?
I've heard opponents of the death penalty argue that it's generallynot the case. E.g., because often the criminals aren't reasoning in terms that factor in the death penalty.
On the other hand (and perhaps I'm misinformed), I've heard that some countries with death penalties for drug dealers have genuinely fewer problems with drug addiction. Lower, I assume, than the numbers you'd get from simply executing every user.
I'm not sure it was meant that way, but nice metaphor. For some students "academic death" might really be better than a life of being trapped in a system that they can only navigate by cheating.
My understanding is that something among those lines happened:
> All Policy A (no LLMs) reviews that were detected to be LLM generated were removed from the system. If more than half of the reviews submitted by a Policy A reviewer were detected to be LLM generated, then all of their reviews were deleted, and the reviewer themselves was removed from the reviewer pool.
Half is a bit lenient in my view, but I suppose they wanted to avoid even a single false positive.
Thank goodness we have you passing judgment on the internet; otherwise who else would be around for us to do it? I'm glad you're willing to destroy someone for a mistake rather than letting them learn and change. We all know that arbitrary and harsh punishments solve everything.
"Oops, you told me not to do this, and I volunteered to agree to these stricter standards yet I flagrantly disregarded them, please forgive me" doesn't seem like something you just accidentally do, it's a conscious choice.
I've been an AC (the person who manages the reviewing process and translates reviews into accept/reject decisions) at ICML and similar conferences a few times. In my experience, grad students tend to be pretty good reviewers. They have more time, they are less jaded, and they are keener to do a good job. Senior people are more likely to have the deep and broad field knowledge to accurately place a paper's value, but they are also more likely to write a short shallow review and move on. I think the worst reviews I've seen have been from senior people.
It's usually not "noob" students. Big conferences require reviewers to have at least one (usually more) published paper in major venues. For students, this usually means they went through the process of being the first author on a few papers.
Ok but you need peer reviewed publications to graduate with a PhD.
And if you retort that the whole academic system is obsolete, well, it still carries a lot of prestige and legitimacy that makes politicians interested in maintaining it, so it's not going anywhere soon.
In many cases authors and reviewers are not the same. In your first two publications to such venues you are not allowed to review yourself and need someone else.
I think consequences are well deserved, but hopefully not on the authors cost (if innocent).
It’s an unethical, false choice. The reviewers are not perfectly rational agents that do free work, they have real needs and desires. Shame on ICML for exploiting their desperation.
Banned for life is a stretch but the actual response is completely fine. They can just resubmit to the next conference.
Words mean something, if you promise to uphold a contract and break it, there are consequences. The reviewers were free to select the policy which allows LLM use.
Is it? The reviewers could simply have chosen a different option in a form field. While I understand that they were "forced" to review under reciprocal review, they still had other choices where I don't see coercion happening and that could have avoided the outcome for them.
While one could scrutinize the accuracy the of the west being a dictatorship (which will likely devolve into a discussion of semantics), I prefer to call attention to the fact that calling North Korea a dictatorship does not require to speak well of the west. Likewise, one can simultaneously criticize the west without protecting its "enemies". Such a binary, poorly critical, way of thinking is ill-suited in pursuing better material conditions for all.
Wow so you guys don't have ideological brain worms at all. I can tell you guys have never studied international relations because you refuse to try an take North Koreas concerns seriously. Do I have to remind you that a South Korean attempted a fascist coup recently and that it was left wing organisations and trade unions that mobilised to stop him?
Also which "communist dictators" are you talking about, and how do you know this? You do realise that the United States is also a one party state when it comes to foreign policy right?
> Wow so you guys don't have ideological brain worms at all.
You have to remember that the supermajority of this site are ultra AnCaps who believe that anything which infringes upon the right of companies to kill people is Communist satanism and a significant minority agrees wholeheartedly with Peter Thiel's weird brand of techno-accelerationism and actively participates in NRx movements.
Like, I understand what you want to get at and I wholeheartedly agree! Just don't be too surprised at the pushback.
> Do I have to remind you that a South Korean attempted a fascist coup recently and that it was left wing organisations and trade unions that mobilised to stop him?
Those "left wing organizations" encompass the majority of South Korea, almost 2/3 of the current parliament, and the current sitting government. And may I remind you that South Korea's current "leftist" president recently gifted Trump a golden crown to get favorable deals?
Those scholars are blowhards. Trump is basically the same as any other time. As you state the US is unipolar in how it treats Others. Aka authoritarian.
> Do I have to remind you that a South Korean attempted a fascist coup recently
By "fascist", I suppose you mean right-wing. Going by the average RW authoritarian dictatorship, that's still better than the documented NK conditions, specially given that most fall later.
> ...[...] and that it left wing organizations and trade unions that mobilized to stop him?
Nice cherry picking. Even Yoon's own party turned against him.
But even ignoring the right wing here, said left wing organizations are also in opposition to NK.
> You do realize that the United States is a one party state when it comes to foreign policy right?
That sentence doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as "one party state foreign policy". The idea of a one party state is specifically about a state that is intolerant to any other ideas other than those accepted by the one true party. If you are referring to USA's aggressiveness, may I remind you that that switches between presidents.
> If you love freedom so much shouldn't this be worrying more?
Lot's of people have tried trading with North Korea, but they're politically unreliable. China and Russia both try obviously, but so has South Korea. These cooperations usually work for a while but eventually the unreliable reality of the North Korean government wrecks it for them. If it were all America's fault, as these sort of regimes always claim, they'd be able to get on well enough with their neighbors, but they can't.
The United States plays a large role in destabilizing them I went to a lecture at my university where a South Korean professor said as much. He was hardly a fan of the North Korean regime. At this point the regime has zero interest in cooperation, I'm sorry but your government is slowly becoming an authoritarian state in its own right and is currently causing chaos at the behest of Israel a country which just commuted a genocide with the blessing of both parties in your country. Imagine trying to get along with your neighbor when they have billions of dollars of military hardware on your border. No country is to willing to cooperate with North Korea because being in the good graces of the United States is 100x more beneficial. You claim that North Korea can't get along with its neighbors please remind me which country invaded and artificialy divided Korea when they elected some one The United States didn't like.
Korea was divided by both United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union organized elections, rigging towards a rather unpopular figure, even within the national socialist circles, for their imperialist purposes.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but where did OP state was american? How is their nationality even relevant here? How is the american descent to authoritarianism, which is still far from a autocratic socialist regime (at least yet), relevant to NK being distrusted even by USA's opposition (i.e. China and Russia)?
The US has fuck all to do with it. Vietnam whooped America's ass in a war which was far more socially significant for the American public (the Korean War is called the "Forgotten War" in America), still has their communist government, yet has normalized (relatively) relations with America and certainly the rest of the world and trades with everybody. North Korea is economically isolated because they refuse to be normal even by communist standards.
I don’t get what you’re saying. There is a paused civil war due to outsiders (whites, UN, etc) interfering and still occupying half the country.
Not sure what you mean what crime did the current outsider occupiers commit after they did a genocide (and not using this lightly. There aren’t that many genocides)?
Sob stories are available against/for every major human conflict. The story you linked isn’t really relevant even to the severity of what we are talking about.
None of the sides are occupied, though, neither by UN, "white" people, etc. That's literally just propaganda. At best, by a large stretch too, one could say NK is occupied by Russia and China, the only countries currently vouching for NK, and, as previously stated, that's a stretch given their reluctance towards Kim' personal kingdom. It is more accurate to say NK serves as a buffer state to them.
What genocide are you referring to? The Shichon Massacre? The one only NK sources claim outsiders commit, for the sole purpose of promoting xenophobia and ultranationalism?
Finally, I think you straight up didn't read the reference. How exactly kidnapping 2 movie directors just to produce propaganda pieces are justifiably helpful to the war effort? I hope you have the decency to realize that this isn't a war tragedy, where innocents are killed/multilated despite best efforts. This is a large private corporation kidnapping 2 civilians from the other side for strictly private purposes.
If the relevance to the discussion isn't clear, the point is that North Korea, even as a Stalinist-inspired socialist country, doesn't need to commit the crimes it does to survive. You are just trying to dismiss NK's particularly rogue behavior under the excuse that "west"(which, in this context, is just a propaganda term, could've used just USA instead) oppresses them, ignoring even other socialist countries that do not have to stoop so low.
Vietnam didn't submit to America, they kicked Americas ass. You need to get a clue. I can't help but notice you're refusing to even acknowledge the point of Vietnam, because it makes you look like an idiot.
Come to think of it, what is a leftoid like you even doing defending North Korea? You should be disowning them. You should be pointing out that North Korea is a de facto monarchy and therefore definitionally Right Wing. You should be arguing North Korea as yet another failed extremist right wing regime. Why do I have to explain your own ideology to you? Is it that you like to get dominated? Come to me, dumb slut, we can be friends. I don't discriminate.
The US has been authoritarian for a long time. What else do you call a society that keeps on humming along while doing various genocides via a culturally embedded Monroe Doctrine mentality.
On a bad year, there might be a few hundred tons of Starlink satellites reentering the atmosphere. In the same year, there will be something like 5000 tons of meteors reentrying, and if you include space dust that radars don't see, you're looking at a few times more than that.
This appeal to scary ignorance to poop on a technology is a cynical reflex. Instead of just saying that a bare number with no context scares you, you should dig deeper and try to actually back up or invalidate your fears.
A quick search shows that it’s more like 50 tons of meteorites entering the atmosphere per day. Or over 18,000 tons per year.
If Starlink’s are about 2 tons each (the v3’s are going to be much larger) and they each have a roughly 5 year life span and the 10,000 currently are equally spread over that lifespan (so around 2,000 a year need to be replaced) that’s equivalent to around 10 tons per day of Starlink material breaking up in the atmosphere.
With the 1 million SpaceX datacenters Musk talks about and an original projected satellite Starlink swarm size of 40,000, that number balloons to something like 500 tons per day.
So while today it is only a fraction of the total amount of material breaking up in the atmosphere, the idea that multiple companies could have Starlink size satellite swarms with lifespans measured in a few years we start to easily dwarf what meteorites do.
They are 0.8 ton each and last ~5 years. 10,000 / 5 * 0.8 = 1,600 tons per year at 10k satellites, and their goal of 40k satellites would put it well above the amount of asteroid debris impacting each year. Further asteroids contain very different materials and don’t all impact at the very low angles you see from de-orbiting in satellites. Thus, I don’t think you can presume this is meaningless without actually modeling it.
Space dust on the other hand behaves very differently on reentry because of the high surface area to volume ratio.
They last 5 years if they're dead in orbit. These satellites have electric thrusters and boost themselves regularly to maintain orbit, so your estimate is wildly off.
As for presuming them to be safe, there's fuck all evidence to the contrary. Whining with baseless speculations about the effect of satellites burning up is motivated by the base reflex to shit on any technological progress as an environmental disaster in the making, but nobody can come up with a story about how dolphins might choke on satellites so instead we get this "muh aluminum" narrative.
A 5 years useful lifespan sets the replacement rate and thus the average number burning up each year. In steady state the delta between end of life and reentry is irrelevant, instead the average number of satellites launched each year = average number that burn up each year.
As to harm. Aluminum is mildly toxic, you don’t eat your bike but vaporized aluminum from a satellite is way more likely to cause harm than if the things were made of steel. The plastic bits are likely fine though.
Saying let’s study something ahead of time rather than contaminating all the world’s farmland with and then seeing what happens seems like a perfectly reasonable standard. Technology has generally been wonderful, but that doesn’t mean everything is equivalent. We want to phase out leaded aviation fuel in the US even though it’s ‘only’ 2,000 tons of lead per year, that’s still enough to be problematic. Perhaps ramping up to ~5k tons/y of vaporized aluminum worldwide is a complete non issue, but if it’s not insisting on some other material isn’t the same as a ban.
reply