It’s paper-writing season, which is a few months of the year chiefly spent in LaTeX writing up results for a bunch of games and AI conferences. Papers are the classic measurement of academic output: you describe your work, your peers decide whether to accept it for publication, and thus publishing more papers indicates more of your work was considered good. I don’t think anyone really thinks this is a good system for assessing academics any more, so I won’t go on about it here, but in theory there are lots of other reasons we write papers: to summarise, to archive, to disseminate. Even if the system of evaluation through paper-writing is stupid, it’s still a worthwhile activity.
Recently I’ve been feeling differently about this. In late December I began work on Danesh, a tool for analysing procedural generators. In January I wrote a paper for FDG about the tool, and it felt pretty okay. It’s satisfying to write about work for the first time, and I felt productive (partly because writing papers becomes a ritual that makes you feel good about yourself, I think).
I submitted the paper towards the end of January, and it’s currently up for review. Assuming that the paper gets accepted, I will discuss it for the first time in August of this year, seven months after the paper was written and eight months after I started work. Seven months is a pretty fast turnaround, too, partly because I built the system so close to the paper deadline. Had I started the work a few weeks later, I might not have submitted a paper to FDG until the following year. A rejection pushes this even further back: at ICCC 2015 I presented work that I had completed in 2013, but had been rejected from the 2014 conference. There was no other suitable place to submit it, so I had no choice but to wait another 12 months and resubmit it with improvements.
Danesh is already markedly different from the tool I described in the paper I wrote three weeks ago, and many of the hypotheticals described in it are now implemented ideas or ruled-out dead-ends. Should the paper be accepted into FDG, Danesh may be unrecognisable by the time I come to present it. Of course, I can write the presentation to reflect this, but anyone who checks the proceedings and reads the paper will be reading ideas that are almost a year old.
Perhaps there’s no way around this and this is simply the best way we’ve found to work. All I know is, it’s making me feel distanced and demotivated about the cycle of paper-writing. I can talk to researchers, developers and other potential users about Danesh right now, I can share my code with them, upload videos, get feedback and adapt my ideas. I get a lot of value from doing so. In their current form, papers are now something I write for the benefit of the system I’m in, and that’s about it.
I think that’s all I have to say for now — I just wanted to follow up on some fairly glib tweets I made last night before falling asleep. Off to go write another paper now. Cheerio.