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

InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

nicholas.carlini.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#31

Post by heisenbit »

hmwhy wrote: post #6

The article resonates with me a lot, and reminded of the couple of years of personal experience of applied machine learning in another field of science; because the points made are exactly what I encountered then and made me quit my job. There is a lot of machine learning snake oil out there, even in the most prestigious journals. The issue is that most people wouldn't know about it until they actually try to reprodu…

Publish or perish - there are a lot of half baked ideas sold by researchers, particularly in fast advancing fields. As long as we as a society value output volume and showmanship over substance it continues. The best defense these days where distribution is instantaneous and global are critical readers and investments into education.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#32

Post by lmilcin »

kingosticks wrote: post #29
lmilcin wrote: post #26

Please, don't call it "bad science". Science was never meant to happen here, this is just plain exercise in dishonesty. "Bad science" is a real thing which happens when somebody tries to "do science" but fails.

There's a book and UK newspaper column series called "bad science". It's not about people with good intentions failing. > Ben Goldacre’s wise and witty bestseller, shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, lifts the lid on quack doctors, flaky statistics, scaremongering journalists and evil pharmaceutical corporations. > Full spleen and satire, Ben Goldacre takes us on a hilarious, invigorating and ultimately alarmin…

For any given term there is always somebody that will misuse it. Just because a book was written or somebody publishes article is not a proof.

I find it useful to have separate terms for when somebody is incompetent (bad science) and when somebody intentionally misleads (quackery).

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#33

Post by Siira »

heisenbit wrote: post #31
hmwhy wrote: post #6

The article resonates with me a lot, and reminded of the couple of years of personal experience of applied machine learning in another field of science; because the points made are exactly what I encountered then and made me quit my job. There is a lot of machine learning snake oil out there, even in the most prestigious journals. The issue is that most people wouldn't know about it until they actually try to reprodu…

Publish or perish - there are a lot of half baked ideas sold by researchers, particularly in fast advancing fields. As long as we as a society value output volume and showmanship over substance it continues. The best defense these days where distribution is instantaneous and global are critical readers and investments into education.

“Investment into education” translates into stupid politicians dumping more money into the status quo with no indication that this will better their own metrics (which are mostly irrelevant in the first place as they don’t teach any useful cognitive skills).

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#34

Post by Upvoter33 »

heisenbit wrote: post #31
hmwhy wrote: post #6

The article resonates with me a lot, and reminded of the couple of years of personal experience of applied machine learning in another field of science; because the points made are exactly what I encountered then and made me quit my job. There is a lot of machine learning snake oil out there, even in the most prestigious journals. The issue is that most people wouldn't know about it until they actually try to reprodu…

Publish or perish - there are a lot of half baked ideas sold by researchers, particularly in fast advancing fields. As long as we as a society value output volume and showmanship over substance it continues. The best defense these days where distribution is instantaneous and global are critical readers and investments into education.

This isn't really much of a case of publish or perish - the two senior authors, to wit, are tenured, established, and very well off. They could each not write a paper for the rest of their careers and be fine. It's really a case of having a small idea - which, upon deeper examination, doesn't really work - and selling it way too hard. The (senior) authors should know better.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#35

Post by oogali »

bkanber wrote: post #3

The best(?) part of the article is this: > In the award ceramony [sic], the Bell Labs researcher presenting the award explicitly said he doesn't understand how InstaHide is secure, but, and I quote, “it works nonetheless”. No! It does not. Bell Labs used to have a wonderful reputation. Not so much anymore, I suppose.

I think if one has paid attention to how many different entities Bell Labs has come under through mergers and acquisitions (and the fate of those parent companies), it's shocking why anyone would think the 1950s/1960s/1970s reputation should be applied to the present entity.

That's not to say that M&A automatically (or significantly dilutes) the value of the research arm of a commercial organization.

Rather, every few years, you have to re-evaluate what they're actually committed to.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#36

Post by kingosticks »

lmilcin wrote: post #32
kingosticks wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a book and UK newspaper column series called "bad science". It's not about people with good intentions failing. > Ben Goldacre’s wise and witty bestseller, shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, lifts the lid on quack doctors, flaky statistics, scaremongering journalists and evil pharmaceutical corporations. > Full spleen and satire, Ben Goldacre takes us on a hilarious, invigorating and ultimately alarmin…

For any given term there is always somebody that will misuse it. Just because a book was written or somebody publishes article is not a proof. I find it useful to have separate terms for when somebody is incompetent (bad science) and when somebody intentionally misleads (quackery).

Sure, I didn't mean to imply it was proof one way or the other, just that it's not a universal thing. I've actually never heard the term "quackery" but I do like it.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#38

Post by nikisweeting »

jxf wrote: post #21

I misunderstood the title as being disappointed that they won second place (as opposed to first place), rather than being disappointed that they won an award at all.

I enjoyed the slight ambiguity of the title, like you I was expecting some whiny article about how someone should've gotten 1st but was pleasantly surprised by a thorough and well-written analysis instead.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#39

Post by inimino »

kingosticks wrote: post #36
lmilcin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any given term there is always somebody that will misuse it. Just because a book was written or somebody publishes article is not a proof. I find it useful to have separate terms for when somebody is incompetent (bad science) and when somebody intentionally misleads (quackery).

Sure, I didn't mean to imply it was proof one way or the other, just that it's not a universal thing. I've actually never heard the term "quackery" but I do like it.

There's also "pseudoscience". Unfortunately all too common in ML, where the ratio of published papers to genuine new developments is (charitably) at least 2:1.

Re: InstaHide Disappointingly Wins Bell Labs Prize, 2nd Place

#40

Post by Ar-Curunir »

tasquatch wrote: post #12

Not the most polite post, but I think this is necessary given that the authors continued to promote the scheme even after it was shown to be broken.

I think the post is frustrated with the attitude of authors who should really know better; Sanjeev Arora is a giant of theoretical computer science, and he should know to do better than this
Post reply on HN