Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The current system lies on the market of ideas - ie if you publish rubbish a competitor lab will call you out.

Does not happen in practice. Unless you're driven by spite, fanaticism towards rigorousness, or just hate their guts there is zero incentive to call out someone's work. Note that very little of what is published is obvious nonsense. But a lot has issues like "these energy measurements are ten times lower than what I can get, how on earth did they get that?" Maybe they couldn't or maybe you misunderstood and need to be more careful when replicating? Are you going to spend months verifying that some measurements in a five-year-old paper are implausible or do you have better things to do?




Sure - such direct contradiction is rare - call out was the wrong phrase - that mostly only happens which people try and replicate extraordinary claims.

Much more common is another paper is published which has a different conclusion in the particular area of science which may or may not reference the original paper - ie the wrong stuff get's buried over time by the weight of other's findings.

You could say that part of the problem is correction is often incremental.

In the end the manipulation by Masliah et al came out - science tends to be incremental, rather than all big break-throughs and I'd say any system will struggle to deal with bad faith actors.

In terms of bad faith actors - you have two approaches - look at better ways to detect, and looking at the properties of the system that perhaps creates perverse incentives - but I always think it's a bad idea to focus too much on the bad actors - you risk creating more work for those who operate in good faith.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: