= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open Problems Related to the Singularity (draft 1) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
Editing and publishing any existing novel results, provided EY and others have some, should the be the top priority. Surely there is an arxiv for that.
Indeed there are. TDT, for example, has not yet received an academic writeup. There are lots of ideas scattered through LW which could be published in journals. And the great thing about academic writing is that you are allowed to use other people's ideas, as long as you cite them. You are considered to be doing them a favor when you do that.
In general, this means that one sprinkles another person's ideas within one's own analysis; if a direct rewrite of, e.g., the TDT paper, for a journal is intended, then the original non-academic author should get credit as co-author.
I understand the point that it might not be worth the time of EY or other SI Fellows to publish ideas in journals. But if some lesser lights want to contribute, they can so so in this way.
One can always post a paper on the arxiv.org preprint server, without going through a peer-review process first. Presumably, one of the CoRR subsections would be appropriate. This is always worth the time spent.
It would a be a breach of research ethics for some "lesser light" (really?) to merely rewrite the TDT paper, add Yudkowsky as a coauthor, and publish it. At minimum, to qualify for coauthorship, Yudkowsky would have to review and approve the draft, and that process could take an indefinite amount of time.
Anything else would still be at worst plagiarism, and at best fradulent authorship.
Certainly, EY would have to serve as a coauthor if the published article was closely based on the original, and of course he would have to agree to that.
But I think that coauthorship is a less likely scenario, and the first idea I mentioned--- use of certain key ideas with citation -- is a more likely one.
Citing an existing write-up in your own research paper adding something new to the TDT, or in an explicitly educational/expository non-research paper is OK. Rewriting existing ideas as your own research paper is not.
Of course. My original comment was meant to convey, through the words "citations," and "coauthor," that proper credit must always be given.