Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#91

Post by ghaff »

deelowe wrote: post #86
Cyph0n wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, comparing the number of papers is meaningless. A better metric is comparing how many significant advances resulted from research funded by the company. Using the second metric, the winner in all cases - without negotiation - would be AT&T Bell Labs.

Shame what happened to that company... :-( I have family who worked there during the hay days.

It's easy to romanticize the old Ma Bell especially given the fantastic work done by Bell Labs.

I'd also remind you of the cost of a telephone system with monopoly status that didn't even let you install your own phones in the house for a long time. And which led too skits like Lily Tomlin's "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#94

Post by [deleted] »

hota_mazi wrote: post #40

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#95

Post by coldtea »

amelius wrote: post #4

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.

>Of course! What researcher would want to work for a company that prohibits scientific publications?

Depends on the compensation and several other factors. Lots of military/intelligence related research for example is not published either...

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#96

Post by opo »

leereeves wrote: post #53
airesQ wrote: 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.

>... (inventors of the mouse, GUI, and object oriented programming),

Xerox PARC had a number of notable inventions and they created the Alto computer which had a bitmapped screen with the desktop metaphor, but they did not invent the mouse or object oriented programming.

In terms of the computer mouse:

>...Independently, Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) invented his first mouse prototype in the 1960s with the assistance of his lead engineer Bill English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse

In regards to object oriented programming:

>...Simula (1967) is generally accepted as being the first language with the primary features of an object-oriented language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#97

Post by bitmapbrother »

amelius wrote: post #4

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.

>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.

Do you have any metrics to back up this dubious claim? I find it very hard to believe Microsoft is even in the same ballpark as IBM considering all of the research centers IBM has throughout the world and the number of years they've been in business.

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#98

Post by deelowe »

ghaff wrote: post #91
deelowe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame what happened to that company... :-( I have family who worked there during the hay days.

It's easy to romanticize the old Ma Bell especially given the fantastic work done by Bell Labs. I'd also remind you of the cost of a telephone system with monopoly status that didn't even let you install your own phones in the house for a long time. And which led too skits like Lily Tomlin's "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."

I can't romanticize about bell labs simply because the rest of the company had shady business practices? Huh?

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#99

Post by paulddraper »

Chinjut wrote: post #79
paulddraper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft created Haskell. Google created Go.

Microsoft didn't create Haskell, though they did ultimately hire many of the movers and shakers who did. (I agree that Go is a horrific mediocrity in comparison.)

You're correct. Microsoft has been Haskell's unofficial benefactor (maybe like Google for Python?)

Re: Apple to Start Publishing AI Research

#100

Post by socmag »

deelowe wrote: post #98
ghaff wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to romanticize the old Ma Bell especially given the fantastic work done by Bell Labs. I'd also remind you of the cost of a telephone system with monopoly status that didn't even let you install your own phones in the house for a long time. And which led too skits like Lily Tomlin's "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."

I can't romanticize about bell labs simply because the rest of the company had shady business practices? Huh?

I think the point was to romanticize but temper it with balance.
Post reply on HN