41–50 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Google started publishing on differential privacy in 2014, way before Apple used WWDC's marketing to paint themselves as the only ones using it.
Genuinely curious, where does google actually use differential privacy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Google started publishing on differential privacy in 2014, way before Apple used WWDC's marketing to paint themselves as the only ones using it.
Genuinely curious, where does google actually use differential privacy?
Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications? I've always been amazed by their attitude. Look at Microsoft Research, and their enormous scientific output over the years. IBM and Google look bleak by comparison, and Apple is not even on the chart.
If you consider the number of papers published over the lifetime of IBM, and the fact that IBM Research does work in all levels of computing (materials science -> software), Microsoft's research output looks minuscule in comparison. But if you're considering only CS research, then you might be right. Here is a nice snapshot of the major contributions that came out of IBM Research over the past 60 years: http://www.re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From that page, it looks like Google has published 4359 papers. From this page, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/about/ Microsoft claims to have published over 10000 papers.
Microsoft is 23 years older than Google and it usually takes time for a corporation to create an R&D lab. Given Google's rich academic roots this happened faster there than usual. Google is doing a good job given that it's a relatively young company. I hope their research output continues to increase in quality and volume. If you go by publication count alone, I suspect that IBM Research is still near the top. They h…
> Researchers say among the reasons Apple has failed to keep pace is its unwillingness to allow its AI engineers to publish scientific papers, stymieing its ability to feed off wider advances in the field. I don't follow. How would preventing employees from writing papers would stop them from reading papers?
Basically they can't provide that seed insight that motivates others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider the number of papers published over the lifetime of IBM, and the fact that IBM Research does work in all levels of computing (materials science -> software), Microsoft's research output looks minuscule in comparison. But if you're considering only CS research, then you might be right. Here is a nice snapshot of the major contributions that came out of IBM Research over the past 60 years: http://www.re…
And all of these, in terms of quality of research output, pale by about an order of magnitude in comparison to Bell Labs for much of its existence (particularly in the era ~1940 to mid 1980s). They were the R&D benchmark for most improvements to IBM Research from the 1960s onward. Additionally IBM sought out its alumni and populated their ranks with notable management and research minds from the Bell Labs stable.
It's not a fair comparison at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, tho Xerox has to be up there as well.
Nah, the transistor is more groundbreaking than anything xerox did.