41–50 of 235 posts
Some heavy hitters on the signatory list: Jeff Dean, Yoshua Bengio, Volodymyr Mnih, Ilya Sutskever, Geoffrey Hinton, Chelsea Finn, Sergey Levine. Would like to see Demis Hassabis and David Silver join the effort. If Deepmind, OpenAI and Berkeley (well represented here) all boycott, that's a huge chunk of key AI researchers.
Yes, and I'm a descendand of Julius Caesar, Confucius and Charlemagne. I won't tell you this when introducing myself though, because so is everybody else.
It wouldn't have occured to me that AI researchers have such inferiority complexes that they need to descend to such name-dropping, but I guess I was wrong.
Journals are based on prestige; researchers give their work for free to a publisher where it is reviewed by other researchers (usually for free) and then published such that other researchers must pay to get the work. It does create a well respected system since publishers want only quality work but the arrangement has become more and more one sided favoring the publishers. TL;DR This isn't that surprising. The cost…
Rather than "has become" this is publishers using their leverage to achieve this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lot of them seem to have the view that things that have not been peer reviewed are not worth reading Can't we have some kind of PageRank system, not necessarily based only on citations, to solve that?
Pagerank is a kind of citations system.
> In my own field of machine learning, itself an academic descendant of Gauss’s pioneering work, [...]. Yes, and I'm a descendand of Julius Caesar, Confucius and Charlemagne. I won't tell you this when introducing myself though, because so is everybody else. It wouldn't have occured to me that AI researchers have such inferiority complexes that they need to descend to such name-dropping, but I guess I was wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universities could be in conflict of interest - organizing review of competing (or worse its own) research
Isn't the peer review process blind, anyway? University affiliation would presumably be one the scrubbed fields, no?
Everytime something like this comes up I feel compelled to remind everyone that in most cases I know of (NSF and NIH funded research) US taxpayer funded research must be made freely available. See https://publicaccess.nih.gov/ and https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/des... . Don't get me wrong, I think the current publishing model is archiac, exploitative, and needs to change, but this whole "tax…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universities could be in conflict of interest - organizing review of competing (or worse its own) research
Isn't the peer review process blind, anyway? University affiliation would presumably be one the scrubbed fields, no?
Admittedly I work outside academia (though my wife is a tenured professor) and thus have some unavoidable naïveté about how the culture and community work, but I’m always confused about why universities aren’t just sponsoring the organizational costs of coordinating the review process, and establishing community-driven open journals to replace the rent-seeking corporate journals. What am I missing about the benefits…
Universities could be in conflict of interest - organizing review of competing (or worse its own) research