I think the paper was probably done honestly, but also very poorly. They claimed... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		sanxiyn on Dec 1, 2024 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Jeff Dean responds to EDA industry about AlphaChip I think the paper was probably done honestly, but also very poorly. They claimed synthesis of 36 new materials. When reviewed, for 24/36 "the predicted structure has ordered cations but there is no evidence for order, and a known, disordered version of the compound exists". In fact, with other errors, 36/36 claims were doubtful. This reflects badly for authors and worse for peer review process of Nature. https://x.com/Robert_Palgrave/status/1744383962913394758

mrguyorama on Dec 2, 2024 [–]

>worse for peer review process of Nature.

Every scientist will tell you that "peer reviewed" is not a mark of quality, correctness, impact, value, accuracy, whatever.

Scientists care about replication. More correctly, they care that your work can be built upon. THAT is evidence of good science.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact