Previous month: Links For May 2025
Projects
- I continue to work on my vision from Paper To Project. I’m doing a small detour into Categories of AI Research Ideas, that shows what type of problems can be easier to start with.
- I love checklists and I spent lots of time moving, so here’s Germany Moving Checklist
- I’ve also procrastinated on a history of chess, and I couldn’t find some videos about Chess In Russia and Lasker, so I created blog posts and automated videos based on Deep Researches from various LLMs
Links
- The most relatable this month is probably this video about research in your free time, and a discord link to join the growing community, very cool!
- Useful tool to randomize your decisions. You can also use you watch arrow or last digit to get a quick probability, and do action based on this (for example you want to eat less sugar, so you will eat it only with 20% probability, and if the minute number on your watch is 8 or 9 you can still eat it)
- A good list from fast.ai to pick up habits in ML
- Another AI co-scientist building company to follow
- Impressive article about learning and experience, shows that people can’t explain how they do things, they just do them correctly, and that can be called (research) taste. Very relevant to my post on Categories of AI Research Ideas
- An old article about slack (not messenger, Definition: Slack. The absence of binding constraints on behavior.) and why it can be good
- A very long interview of the king of Saudi Arabia. I’m even thinking about reading a book about him now
- AI videos are getting good and empowering
And more food for thoughts
Avoid Flow. Do What Does Not Come Easy. The mistake most weak pianists make is playing, not practicing.
and
“The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the ‘quantity’ group: fifty pounds of pots rated an ‘A’, forty pounds a ‘B’, and so on. Those being graded on ‘quality’, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an ‘A’.
Well, come grading time a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity!
It seems that while the ‘quantity’ group was busily churning out piles of work — and learning from their mistakes — the ‘quality’ group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.”