Many if not most of the readers are grad students. Arguably they're the people who pay that indirectly in increased tuition fees.
17 karma · joined September 16, 2025
A different way to look at this is to question what "old slop" actually means.
The reason not to publish in Nature is that it might take a long time to get everything right in the paper to publish, to the point it takes years to get it read. Publishing fewer results faster spreads the results faster.
1. Open peer-review to anyone interested instead of only select few. HN is an example of this phenomenon but not for novelty specifically.
2. Permit publication of papers that are shorter for results to spread faster. AI papers are a good example of this phenomenon.
Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.
An AI or search engine that identified the value of a contribution and paid the author directly from advertising money based on query traffic could be a way to solve this.
For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider [url-redacted]. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.
This may be a failure of the platform protocol. I wish the protocol was: [phrase-redacted]. Grok ranking people's posts based on truth will be interesting.
AI != LLMs. A future version of better AI might become capable of saying "I don't know."
The mess of figuring out what the facts are, in a way, already has deployed solutions. Journalists are a form of fact checkers. Big news companies with multi-million budgets pay journalists to check things. In effect there already is a market for fact-checking. Managing perceptions by twisting facts is something many have been accused of. When news companies are found to have spread lies they possibly face penalties.
So if the big clunky enterprise version of a form of fact-checking is already in place and kind of working, why would something closer to the lean startup-y tail-end of the distribution of fact-checking not work? If a version of a facts marketplace is already working, why doubt it would ever work?
X paying users for engagement is a new variation of this. Prediction markets like Polymarket is another. Polymarket teaming up with TruthSocial could be an interesting result.
It's okay to have many contested subjects our society cannot agree on and which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. It's okay to say I don't know.
Maybe not "full", statistically, but many times I receive a similar impression.
The reason many comments are downvoted on HN in general is most often unknown to me. One interpretation is that it's a major flaw in HN.
This design decision by HN could be intentional, as a trade-off to achieve something else. For example, it could be done to have high velocity of discussion. High velocity could preserve an invariant of keeping or pulling users on the site.
If it's a trade-off, which would suggest something is given up for it, it might be worth exploring what's given up.
I didn't write my comment to applaud them.
One potential solution to the accuracy problem is to turn facts into a marketplace. Make AIs deposit collateral for the facts they emit and have them lose the collateral and pay it to the user when it's found that statements they presented were false.
AI would be standing behind its words by having something to lose, like humans. A facts marketplace would make facts easy to challenge and hard to get right.
Working POC implementation of facts marketplace in my submissions.
How will journals or conferences handle AI slop?
How would an online world that is optimized for humans, not algorithms, look like?
Should content creators get paid?
In the end this app builder didn't give me what I want.
It also looks like it uses bolt.new instead of be something built by the OP.
Yes. Many times I found the actual problem is something slightly different and often simpler than what people think. It's a kind of superpower to think this way.
Maybe something like https://smallbets.com is better than Product Hunt in finding that group of people. PH doesn't allow signups with only a username/email and password.
I'm starting to believe a different community is needed for building in public that isn't HN or PH though it might be smallbets, I didn't try it.
It worked for me to be highly uncompromising on what I want to have while at the same time highly accommodating to what people want. Also to indulge in things I like that others don't.
Another thing that worked in the past is to have a mobile app because it gets you users simply because the app store puts it in front of people.
What didn't work is emailing people asking for feedback. People mostly don't care.
I want a showhn.com where builders commit to try each other's stuff.
I want to see how it would look without signing up at all.
The administration says CZ wasn't guilty and was persecuted by the previous administration. https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1981457002921677059
What really happened here?