Hi, today i've received the notification that my paper was not accepted for a conference. The subject is AI.I submited this paper in april, and between this day and today another paper has been published with the same core idea as mine. Mine was not published on Arxiv, and now i don't know what to do with that paper since the other paper is better. Can you help me please ?
>>15833839>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.
>>16283154Oh so i can't ask questions about the scientific process on /sci/ ?
Bump
>>16283153Your reviewer must have been the author of that other paper. That's really unlucky. You can try to cite the other paper, explain why yours is actually different, and try another conference. There are so many journals and conferences that one will accept it, even if it is practically the same as the one already published. You will not be getting many citations, or maybe any, but least you'll have something published.
>>16283153Sounds like you got fucking Zhang et al.'d, white boy. How does that yellow cock taste?
>>16283153Copy paste it here and add an ethereum address in the name fieldGunna chromadb, langchain huggingface bigscience/bloom this shitSimping for rep is a thing of the past, get paid by being pertient to sci based llm queryies.4HktPerfect nameKek
This is normal. Sounds like your idea fucking sucks (it's probably a garbo LLM paper) and you are a newb (as evidence that's you're complaining about this) and you get less compute than zhang for good results. Maybe try doing something more original next time.
>>16283153Kill yourself
Post it
>>16283543what's wrong with you
>>16283153If the other paper is better than yours, then why does society need yours to be published>I need to publish it for myself, not for societyseflish, innit? typical scientist.
>>16283153since you can't make money on it, dump it here. no sense in letting all that time working on it go to waste.
>>16283574your paper was rejected. that is a great dishonor and the only honorable thing to do is kill yourself
>>16283153Have you considered that papers on the subject of AI should be Arxived infra 200 or 800? Maybe you tried to misclassify yours infra 500
