Presumably they don't because they're training the audience (us) to trust the machine, not its verifiers, even if they were included.
replyI appreciate you acknowledging the politics behind this. OpenAI does not intend to be a software company for long, they intend to be scientific infrastructure. They'll want to be faucet from which pours embryos, orbital calculation, geothermal/substructural rating, and etc.
reply> they intend to be scientific infrastructure.
replybeyond naive.
Looking at the quality of the writing in these documents (or at least, the ones that relate to problems I've worked on), I do not think humans reviewed them.
replyAnd that means that the recommendations of the reference group has not been followed. The only improvement here is that it is version tracked? No authors, no careful write-ups with exposition.
replythe reference group can recommend all they want, no one will review 700 plus papers.
replyThere are competitive reasons that they don't want to share all the people on the team.
replyI think it's a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. I think they would be afraid to seem like they're claiming that the selected scientists deserve the praise of an invention or something, when it's "just the machine who did the work"
replyYeah, that's probably right. But, it's a "new world" - invent a new standard - "Written by Claude Foo X.Y; initial review by John Doe".
replyWith a deluge of results, having some human expert vouch that it even might be worthwhile would help. (e.g. see the link on HN yesterday, "Two Room-Temperature Antiferromagnetic Semiconductor Candidates" - I see it not worth looking at unless a subject expert vouches for it).
> I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result
replyAssume the empty list you see is complete. :)
Long term this will be the only reasonable author list:
Chad G. Peter {1}, Mat H. Lean {2}.
reply1: Author 2: Verifier
/s