[HN Gopher] Tweets to Citations: The Impact of Social Media Infl...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Tweets to Citations: The Impact of Social Media Influencers on AI
       Research
        
       Author : sebg
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2024-01-26 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
        
       | lordswork wrote:
       | As much as I dislike all the baggage that comes with Elon owning
       | Twitter, it is the only place I know with a critical mass of AI
       | talent sharing papers and thoughts. Even in read-only mode, it's
       | incredibly useful as a way to stay up to date with interesting AI
       | papers and discussions.
       | 
       | Does a good alternative to this exist?
        
         | ronsor wrote:
         | I wish someone would scrape and mirror Twitter-X (fully, not
         | just proxy like Nitter).
         | 
         | I know Musk would be upset though.
        
         | 3abiton wrote:
         | I struggle to keep up with the current trends in AI, do you
         | have any twitter community recommendations to follow?
        
         | carlossouza wrote:
         | The growing pace of new papers, especially in CS, is a hard
         | problem to solve.
         | 
         | We created this tool to help:
         | 
         | https://trendingpapers.com/
         | 
         | The website was launched in October. It is already used by
         | researchers in most of the leading universities and tech
         | companies and is growing fast. Let me know what you think..
         | cheers!
        
           | obblekk wrote:
           | This is super cool. I've often wondered why google scholar
           | didn't use pagerank over the citations... and now you've done
           | it! Props!
        
           | dr_kiszonka wrote:
           | Very cool! Would it be possible to order category filters
           | alphabetically?
        
         | brucethemoose2 wrote:
         | In certain topics, Discords and Github repos.
         | 
         | ...Yes, basically siloed off and unsearchable.
        
           | DaiPlusPlus wrote:
           | Discord is where our conversations go to die, yes; but (non-
           | private) Github repos are clonable and very searchable - so
           | I'm not sure why you wrote that.
        
             | sodality2 wrote:
             | Searchable, yes - but you must be signed in.
             | 
             | > Sign in to search code on GitHub - Before you can access
             | our code search functionality please sign in or create a
             | free account.
        
         | downWidOutaFite wrote:
         | It's why big tech killed rss, they want to own our peer to peer
         | channels.
        
         | bugglebeetle wrote:
         | Yeah, various AI Discords, like the Nous Research server.
        
         | daxfohl wrote:
         | Back in the day, Google Reader was great for this. It's still
         | hard to fathom that nothing ever replaced it.
        
       | devindotcom wrote:
       | Don't underestimate the power of informal networks. Buzz is hard
       | to quantify but it clearly has a huge effect on "real" metrics
       | like citations.
        
       | paulpauper wrote:
       | "Computer Science > Digital Libraries"
       | 
       | how does this even merit inclusion on arxiv? Does it even count
       | as science? We're talking meta-computer-science. Meanwhile, It's
       | hard enough for me to get the endorsement to publish my actual
       | math paper on there, which has afik new results. The computer
       | science section of arxiv feels like a giant citation ring of
       | mediocre, math-light papers.
        
         | Ar-Curunir wrote:
         | Computer science is not mathematics. There's plenty of
         | empirical work to be done in CS, including HCI.
        
           | paulpauper wrote:
           | I may as well publish under a CS category if that is what it
           | takes.
        
         | dopylitty wrote:
         | It's basically academia washing for the new tech bubble.
         | 
         | They saw how closely and uncritically people followed papers
         | about COVID and realized if they released "papers" about
         | whatever llm product they were working on it would lend some
         | kind of credibility that they never got with cryptocurrency or
         | Web 3.0 or the metaverse.
        
       | ansk wrote:
       | So glad the AK account exists. As a researcher, I've always
       | wanted some guy with an econ degree and a year of ML eng to
       | recommend me papers after glancing at them for maybe 30 seconds.
       | 
       | I am genuinely baffled that researchers in the field think there
       | is any value in the service AK provides. I'd wager I could create
       | an equally effective bot with the following process:
       | 1) Create a historical dataset of publications and their citation
       | counts              2) For each publication extract the following
       | features:                  - H-index of first author
       | - Maximum H-index of all authors                  - Number of
       | author affiliations in {top-10 school, deepmind, meta, openai,
       | nvidia}                  - Number of times the phrase "state-of-
       | the-art" appears                  - Which latex template is used
       | (NeurIPS, ICML, etc.)                  - Number of images in the
       | paper                  - Whether there is an image on the first
       | page                  - Whether "all you need" appears in the
       | title                  - Whether the publication has a linked
       | project page              3) Train a shallow decision tree with
       | citation counts as the regression target
        
         | Imnimo wrote:
         | "Do I recognize the latex template" is my number one filter
         | when clicking through the new arxiv papers each day, so I
         | definitely buy that that would work.
        
         | icyfox wrote:
         | A friend of mine created a bot to do basically this, except it
         | also looks at the current page rank associated with researchers
         | recommending that paper. I've seen a lot of good looking papers
         | (decent school/group/conference submission/etc.) that don't end
         | up contributing to the field. Top researchers and Professors
         | tend to have a better intuition of importance by reading the
         | abstract and a quick skim.
        
         | abidlabs wrote:
         | There are have been many, many services that have tried to
         | automate paper selection based on these heuristics. None of
         | them have had the staying power of AK's account. As someone
         | with a PhD in machine learning from Stanford, I can attest AK's
         | taste is quite good.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-26 23:00 UTC)