Live data from Hacker News

Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

bloomberg.com

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#61
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if anything can be considered successful when compared with Bell Labs. It is a very high bar to meet (given they mostly invented transistors, information theory, unix and c). The modern world is to great extent a byproduct of the experiment that was Bell Labs. Some laugh, and say that it was experiment that has gone awry.

And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it. Much like Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (inventors of the mouse, GUI, and object oriented programming), which Xerox failed to profit from.

> And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it.

I get that point. We're all interested in building great and successful companies on here, so of course it's a bummer when there is success from one perspective, but the whole thing kinda doesn't work out overall.

But I also want to ask: As a society, don't we benefit so much from any advancements made in the open, through publicly shared research as well as the open source movement, that sometimes we would do well to just bask in the glory of those advancements and never mind what individual entities (financially, structurally) stuck around or not, profited or not, in the procuring of said advancements?

It's also very clear of course that it is beneficial to look at the past in a discerning way, learn from it, make it better now and in the future. Still, there's something about the thought in the paragraph above that I wanted to bring up.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#62
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it. Much like Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (inventors of the mouse, GUI, and object oriented programming), which Xerox failed to profit from.

> And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it. I get that point. We're all interested in building great and successful companies on here, so of course it's a bummer when there is success from one perspective, but the whole thing kinda doesn't work out overall. But I also want to ask: As a society, don't we benefit so much from any advancements made in the open, through publicly shared research as w…

I just meant that, in the context of this post, and given the poor history of corporate research turning into corporate profits, I can understand Apple's reluctance to fund blue sky research.

I do admire a company that contributes in that way, recognizing that it's a contribution to humanity rather than investment for future profits.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#63

> 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?

I think they mean that Apple isn't offering researchers the incentives they desire, and may have trouble recruiting them.

Yes. Researchers like to publish their research because their publication record the metric they're evaluated on by the outside world. If you can't publish your research, that will significantly reduce your ability to get hired by another top research group, industrial or academic, in the future.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#64
post #44
post #10

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.

I once read a Microsoft research paper. I think its central premise had a fatal flaw:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/b...

The author confused continuity of the DECISION FUNCTION with continuity of the OUTCOME CURVE.

In other words, an algorithm such as "keep trying to make a decision until you notice that t > C, after which always pick the left one" will in fact NOT have a continuous outcome curve, despite the decision function being continuous.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#67
post #11

> Amazon.com Inc.’s Alexa So Alexa is really the biggest thing in the market so far right? How many papers does Amazon publish?

Amazon's Alexa group has published 10 papers in the last 2 years.

https://www.amazon.jobs/en-gb/landing_pages/alexa-machine-le...

Dunno about the rest of the company.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#68

> 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?

Would you rather work for a company that has their engineers actively contribute to open source, or a company where all of your code is private?

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#70
post #64
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I once read a Microsoft research paper. I think its central premise had a fatal flaw: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/b... The author confused continuity of the DECISION FUNCTION with continuity of the OUTCOME CURVE. In other words, an algorithm such as "keep trying to make a decision until you notice that t > C, after which always pick the left one" will in fact NOT have a continuous outco…

That's Leslie Lamport, winner of the 2013 Turing Award.
Post reply on HN