211–220 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think that allegedly driving a PoC student to suicide would count for something in the PC twitter sphere…
Are Asians PoC? I thought they were not and that was literally the only reason the oft repeated phrase “black and other PoC” didn’t literally translate into “not white”.
In undergrad, my professor explained to me in very candid terms (from the position of being a generous mentor) that the optimal path to success in the Arts and Social Sciences is: 1. Find a niche only a couple of people operate in. 2. Make friends with them at all costs and work in their area. 3. Review each others work, amassing enormous citations in highly respected (albeit sometimes niche) journals.
I saw something similar in an academic's blogged advice ten or fifteen ago: "At graduate level, you should cultivate [peers and a concentration] such that your intellectual correspondence is publishable." I took that as plausible enough at the time to mention the advice once to a graduate student in philosophy. I did not take it at the time as immediately translatable into a [simply translated?] phrase I have heard s…
This seems misguided, and I certainly hope that this 'friendship corruption' concept never catches on. There are great papers that started as letters and were later completed by the sender, recipient or both. No one should feel ashamed about that, and no one should feel ashamed of developing friendships with their colleagues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it possible that professors with impeccable academic credentials get fired for jokes nearly instantly [1], yet this student's professor was allowed to carry on until he resigned two years later [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_contro... [2] https://eu.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/...
I would encourage you to think more about the social use of "jokes". Once we get past the level of knock-knocks, jokes very often have social meaning. Look at people like George Carlin, for example. His "7 dirty words" routine was deeply political. It was a full-on assault on American government censorship and the cultural elements that demanded it. And looking at history, he's won. Humor can be very powerful. Jokes…
I think you’re reading way too deeply into this. You’re referring to the Tim Hunt quote linked?
Everything is about control or manipulation - its implicit to the human condition.
The idea that a field can be reformed by making it worse until it suddenly faces a reckoning and emerges much better is ... I don't know where people keep getting the idea that this might work. It has never worked in any field ever in history. The thing that can happen: fields gradually split into rigorous and non-rigorous camps. Like with evidence-based medicine, or chemistry/alchemy. Depending on the field, either…
Well, I wonder if this could force people to start publishing their code so others can replicate the results. This would help greatly with the kinds of issues that are being discussed: - It would be much harder to hide makeup results and cherry-picked seeds - Useless research would not be as easy to hide - The real-world impact of the research would be more valued. - Researchers would be forced to recheck their code…
The real solution to the problem is to set a rule that says if you use a lab's published code base AT ALL for new work, you must cite the people who produced it along with the PI of that lab. No exceptions; acknowledgements don't count. Labs (especially those outside of CS such as life sciences labs) view code as IP and they don't want to release their code bases for two reasons: First, they don't think they will be properly cited when people use it (valid concern). Second, they think that they will lose their monopoly on future publications using the code base (less valid concern). Mandatory citation would solve both of those problems. Until a rule like this is in place, most labs will fight you tooth and nail on releasing code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it possible that professors with impeccable academic credentials get fired for jokes nearly instantly [1], yet this student's professor was allowed to carry on until he resigned two years later [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_contro... [2] https://eu.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/...
I would encourage you to think more about the social use of "jokes". Once we get past the level of knock-knocks, jokes very often have social meaning. Look at people like George Carlin, for example. His "7 dirty words" routine was deeply political. It was a full-on assault on American government censorship and the cultural elements that demanded it. And looking at history, he's won. Humor can be very powerful. Jokes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it possible that professors with impeccable academic credentials get fired for jokes nearly instantly [1], yet this student's professor was allowed to carry on until he resigned two years later [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_contro... [2] https://eu.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/...
I would encourage you to think more about the social use of "jokes". Once we get past the level of knock-knocks, jokes very often have social meaning. Look at people like George Carlin, for example. His "7 dirty words" routine was deeply political. It was a full-on assault on American government censorship and the cultural elements that demanded it. And looking at history, he's won. Humor can be very powerful. Jokes…
On the other hand it's completely fair that people feel pushed down by them.
HOWEVER - this entire social justice movement is being used to outsource getting into conflict, and standing up for yourself. My guess is 80-90% of the time if you told someone who made a sexist joke that you are hurt by it, they would apologise (sincerely), and probably not do it again. But for that people actually need to get into a conflict situation, which is hard.
But it would make life a lot easier if we just sorted out these issues at the source, with two people, explaining what hurts and why to someone.
This modern solution of going to HR or to Twitter is not constructive to society, it creates massive divides, it also creates cowardly behaviour rather than encouraging actual people to talk to each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are Asians PoC? I thought they were not and that was literally the only reason the oft repeated phrase “black and other PoC” didn’t literally translate into “not white”.
I have never heard the suggestion that Asian people aren't considered "PoC".
In undergrad, my professor explained to me in very candid terms (from the position of being a generous mentor) that the optimal path to success in the Arts and Social Sciences is: 1. Find a niche only a couple of people operate in. 2. Make friends with them at all costs and work in their area. 3. Review each others work, amassing enormous citations in highly respected (albeit sometimes niche) journals.
I saw something similar in an academic's blogged advice ten or fifteen ago: "At graduate level, you should cultivate [peers and a concentration] such that your intellectual correspondence is publishable." I took that as plausible enough at the time to mention the advice once to a graduate student in philosophy. I did not take it at the time as immediately translatable into a [simply translated?] phrase I have heard s…
I'm not saying that one can't bleed into the other -- sometimes they do. I'm saying that any approach you take that disincentivizes the bad behavior is also likely to harm good scientific collaborations as well. It's one of the downsides of peer review.
I manage an applied research group in the machine learning space, particularly AutoML and synthetic data generation. That means is we read the latest literature and create applications. Sometimes we build new research, most of the time we patent something new. But the goal is to get research to production as fast and as impactful as possible. The first thing I do when sorting research (papers, blog posts, presentatio…
I think this looks like a bigger problem specifically because you are in AutoML.
Suppose you are training a GAN. There's notoriously a certain amount of luck involved in traditional GAN training, because you need the adversary and the generator to balance each other just right. So people try many times until they succeed. Probably they were not even recording each attempt, so they do not report how many times they had to run before getting good results.
From an AutoML point of view, this is BS work - the training procedure cannot be automated, and (apart from using the actual seeds) the work cannot be reproduced.
But from the point of view of everyone else, maybe it is fine. They get a generator model at the end, it works, other people can run it.
> Undermining the credibility of computer science research is the best possible outcome for the field, since the institution in its current form does not deserve the credibility that it has. This is obviously somewhat tongue in cheek, but I’m not sure the author appreciates the full implications of how this would play out. Research funding for AI exists in competition with funding for all other fields. Revealing deep…
The amount of people pouring into AI, or more specifically to Neural Network version of AI is unnatural, and it resembles a bubble in the classic economic sense.