> Interesting, a large US company with over 1000 materials scientists (there can only be a handful of those) introduced a cutting-edge AI tool and decided to make a study out of it / randomize it and gave all the credentials to some econ PHD student. Would love to know more about how this came to be. Also, why his PHD supervisor didn't get a co-author, never seen that. I'm always slightly suspicious of these very strong results without any public data / way to reproduce it. We essentially have to believe 1 guys word.
> The last version was posted on arXiv, a global repository for unpublished science research, in December.
It looks like it was never published.
HN discussion at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115310 (180 points | Nov 12 2024 | 47 comments)
Interesting comment by lysecret
> Interesting, a large US company with over 1000 materials scientists (there can only be a handful of those) introduced a cutting-edge AI tool and decided to make a study out of it / randomize it and gave all the credentials to some econ PHD student. Would love to know more about how this came to be. Also, why his PHD supervisor didn't get a co-author, never seen that. I'm always slightly suspicious of these very strong results without any public data / way to reproduce it. We essentially have to believe 1 guys word.
no paywall: https://www.wsj.com/economy/aidan-toner-rodgers-mit-ai-resea...