Comment by sigmoid10
12 days ago
Recent? This has been going on forever. You probably only notice them more now because due to the explosion in ML research, this stuff bubbles to the top more often in recent years.
12 days ago
Recent? This has been going on forever. You probably only notice them more now because due to the explosion in ML research, this stuff bubbles to the top more often in recent years.
Certainly for years. I remember a biochemistry review paper titled "50 ways to love your lever" about, well, biological levers but of course a pun on the 1975 song https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Ways_to_Leave_Your_Lover
edit: https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(00)81332-X
You think this has been going on forever? You probably don't realize the shift in professionality because you experienced the degradation in real time.
> shift in professionality
How did it happen, in your opinion?
There is no shift in the professionalism curve. Good researchers are still good and bad ones are still bad in that regard. But if you 10x the number of researchers and/or papers in a field, the bottom 10% will seem like they are a lot more common. Especially for people outside the field who have no way of discerning high quality from low quality papers, which is all too common on HN.
I'm sure I read an old article by Dijkstra about connected graphs structure that was titled "wheels within wheels" or used the term inside.
Unfortunately I can't find it by either searching or using the public LLMs, because there are too many results about the shortest path algorithm and anything else about dijkstra is lost.