Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Japanese start Sakana said that AI was created Scientific publication reviewed by the first peer. However, no claim is not considered, there is an important warning to be taken into account.
This Arguing around AI and the role of scientific process Grows strongly to the day. Many researchers do not believe that the AI is ready to serve as “co-author”, others think that they are potential – but they know the first days.
Sakana falls to the last camp.
The company said that the AI system called Alim-V2, Sakhana’nın after Sakana’nın after Sakan’ın’nın Sakhana’nın a seminar presented in ICLR at the ICLR. Sakhana claims that the workshop organizers, as well as ICLR management, as well as the company’s company, the company has agreed to conduct a double-blind opinion of manuscripts.
Sakhana, in the English University of Columbia and Oxford University, said that he cooperates with Oxford University to provide three AI documents for the above workshop for peers. The AI created the “end-end”, scientific assumptions, experiments, experiments, information analysis, visual images, text and titles “end-ending” phrases.
“We have created research ideas by submitting a workshop and description to AI,” Robert Lange, research scientist and a member of the Sakana, told Techcrunch via e-mail. “It has ensured that the documents created are in the subject and appropriate presentations.”
A third paper was accepted on the ICLR workshop – a paper that throws a critical lens in training techniques for AI models. Before publishing in the interest of Sakan, transparency and ICLR conventions, he said he took the paper back immediately before publishing.
“Adopted paper presents a new, promising method to teach neural networks and shows that the remaining empirical problems are” said Lange. “It offers an interesting information point to spark the next scientific research.”
But the achievement is not as impressive as it seems at first glance.
In a blog post, Sakana, AI’s “embarrassing” quotation errors, for example, combine a method of mistake instead of the original 1997 work.
Sakanan’s paper was not checked further as a number of other peers are considered. The company did not receive an additional “meta opinion”, which is theoretically in the theoretical of the paper and seminar organizers.
Then the admission rates for conference workshops inclined to be higher for the main “conference track” – a truth is clearly reminiscent of the candidate in the blog post. The company said that none of the AI research did not pass the internal bar for the ICLR conference.
Matthew, a researcher, EU researcher and associate professor at the University of Alberta called the results called “a little mistake.”
“The people of Sakana have chosen some of the arthropons of some created ones, that is, they used to use the consequences they used human judgment,” he said. “This is what I show that people can be effective in plus EU, which can create scientific progress in AI.”
Mike Cook, who specializes in King’s College London in London, asked the harshness of peer reviewers and seminar.
“New workshops like this are often considered by small researchers,” he said. “This seminar should also be noted that this workshop talks about negative results and difficulties – it is great, and use a similar workshop – but it is controversial to write about a failure.”
Taking into account that the EU is superior to the EU’s prose-speaking prose, the EU can review Peer, Peer, he added. Partially-Ai created dams The passing magazine research is not even new, it is not cooked, it is ethical dilemmas for these sciences.
AI’s technical shortcomings – such as trend set a management – Be careful not to confirm many scientists for serious work. Moreover, experts are afraid of AI end up In scientific literature, he did not improve the progress.
“We need to ask ourselves that the result of what is the best of how good it is in the design and holding of the EU’s design and holding an idea, there is a difference between the research and contribution of a field.”
According to Sakhana, the Credit does not claim that the EU’s groundbreaking – or even novel-scientific work can occur. On the contrary, the purpose of the experiment said, “The quality of the Quality of the AI,” he said.
“(T) There are many difficult questions about the lack of judgment for their service to avoid the prejudice here (T).” “Going forward, we will exchange opinions with the public about the state of this technology to ensure that this technology will come to a situation, thereby violating the meaning of the review process of scientific peers.”
