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

Please commit more blatant academic fraud

jacobbuckman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 365 posts

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#251

Post by geofft »

rscho wrote: post #197
geofft wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but as an individual researcher, the integrity of your scientific work is not compromised by the unethical goals of your employer or the unethical ways in which it raises funding. That's what I'm claiming. It's rather different from amateur vs. professional athletics, where both have the same goal of "run as fast as possible but within some nebulous concept of natural human ability": the goals are different bet…

> as an individual researcher And how is an individual researcher funded, if I may ask? We already have many homeless teachers living in their cars, so I don't think the power of public opinion will rebalance financial incentives to make an even more useless profession (in the eyes of the general public) attractive. Joe-Schmoe-the-janitor won't see financially supporting lone nerds as a first priority.

Huh, I thought I was pretty clear that I meant an individual researcher employed by industry to do their research ("for CS in general - and especially for AI - you'll be just fine in industry.... Go where the incentives are better aligned for you.") - was it not?

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#252

Post by geofft »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #198
geofft wrote: post #26

There's another solution: give up on academia. The model of academia works well when some part of society is willing to fund researchers spending time on open-ended basic research, even if it produces no results. Saying "Don't engage in unethical behavior" is well and good, but if the incentives are towards unethical behavior, you shouldn't expect very much. Academic funding and employment is very closely linked to t…

>> All you need is a pile of cloud VMs, and industry can get you that. That is true if by "AI research" you mean "applications", as opposed to contributing anything new. To contribute new knowledge what is needed is time and the resoruces to study the work of those who have contributed new knowledge before you, and to become an expert in that knowledge. In theory, that's half the job of a PhD student. The other half…

If the noble of heart can get good work done in academia despite the pressures on them, why can they not get good work done in industry despite the pressures on them?

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#253

Post by zozbot234 »

whatshisface wrote: post #229
prepend wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FUnny you leave out the part where he also said if you criticize a woman in the lab they cry... Do you think women in the lab, when criticized, are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to cry? Is the scientist’s comment mean spirited, or sexist, or just an observation? I think it’s important to consider what the intent behind these jokes are. The Wikipedia article calls out statements from 29 other scientist…

The rule is really simple: it makes people uncomfortable when you make generalizations about natural traits shared by the group they're in. Period. All groups (even groups people feel proud to be a part of), and all generalizations, even ones that sound positive or don't apply to the listener. I'm not going to list examples but if you're having a hard time thinking of them just imagine overhearing a conversation at a…

> it makes people uncomfortable when you make generalizations about natural traits shared by the group they're in.

It does not make everyone uncomfortable, obviously. I thought we were not supposed to resort to stereotypes.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#254

Post by dennis_jeeves »

tlb wrote: post #59

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…

>Medical research

Lol.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#255

Post by ModernMech »

OminousWeapons wrote: post #236
ModernMech wrote: post #227

There's a lot of discussion here about changing the incentive structure of academia to prevent this kind of fraud, but based on the discussion I've read so far I don't think a lot of people here understand the exact incentives that are involved, so I'd like to try to explain how academics actually operate. We've all head of "publish or perish", and there is a general understanding that you have to publish papers to g…

I agree with everything you said. At the risk of being pedantic: > A feedback loop of profits from industry to universities. Right now when technological advancements happen at universities, those flow out to the general public, then to companies, who figure out how to monetize them. The profits generated by that monetization are captured entirely by private corporations, even though the foundational innovations on w…

Yes, this is true. But I was thinking more along the lines of fundamental research. For example, DARPA spent a lot of money investing in transistor research in the 50s, which begat microcontrollers, which begat companies like MS, Apple, and Google. Those companies together are worth multiple trillions of dollars, yet wouldn't exist but for the publicly funded sector research that preceded them. Harvard's $40 billion looks piddly in comparison. And what kind of research does MS/Google/Facebook fund in the University? They'd like us to figure out how to optimize ad placements on their search engines and social media sites. I've seen far too many promising researchers swallowed by that kind of work, only to quit after realizing the direct application of their research is simply to make those companies more profitable while they are paid $25k per year and eating ramen 3x a day.

We see the same thing happening right now in robotics. DARPA spent a lot of money jumpstarting driverless cars with the DARPA grand challenge in 2005. The researchers I know who were involved with that have left academia and are in the private sector now because that's where all the money is. There's no money flowing back in the academic direction even though there's a direct line from what they were doing in 2005 to what Toyota, GM, Google, Tesla, etc. are doing today.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make profits and be worth a lot of money. They provide a lot of value. But the outcome definitely seems lopsided to me.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#256

Post by zozbot234 »

skystarman wrote: post #175
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know any of the context here, but it seems to me that what the quote actually says is that the author admits that he is unable to function effectively with female colleagues, that there are other men like him, and that it's a problem that mustn't be allowed to hold women back from doing science.

It's interesting that everyone defending this old coot is just memory-holing the clearly misogynistic comment "if you a criticize a woman in the lab, they cry" and are choosing to only mention the comments that are more easily defensible as a "joke"

I mean, who could prove him wrong? Maybe his idea of "criticizing" his fellow professionals involves a lot of yelling and throwing chairs around. There's certainly some people like that in the workplace.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#257

Post by QuinnWilton »

rscho wrote: post #249
bumby wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you can help me understand the context better. From the GP post where he seems to advocate for separate male and female labs he seems to imply there isn’t enough professionalism present to have co-ed labs. I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about…

The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.

Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#258

Post by OminousWeapons »

ModernMech wrote: post #255
OminousWeapons wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said. At the risk of being pedantic: > A feedback loop of profits from industry to universities. Right now when technological advancements happen at universities, those flow out to the general public, then to companies, who figure out how to monetize them. The profits generated by that monetization are captured entirely by private corporations, even though the foundational innovations on w…

Yes, this is true. But I was thinking more along the lines of fundamental research. For example, DARPA spent a lot of money investing in transistor research in the 50s, which begat microcontrollers, which begat companies like MS, Apple, and Google. Those companies together are worth multiple trillions of dollars, yet wouldn't exist but for the publicly funded sector research that preceded them. Harvard's $40 billion…

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#259

Post by rscho »

QuinnWilton wrote: post #257
rscho wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.

Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?

They don't. I fail to see how that's surprising given that straight people don't fit either.

Re: Please commit more blatant academic fraud

#260

Post by rscho »

geofft wrote: post #251
rscho wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as an individual researcher And how is an individual researcher funded, if I may ask? We already have many homeless teachers living in their cars, so I don't think the power of public opinion will rebalance financial incentives to make an even more useless profession (in the eyes of the general public) attractive. Joe-Schmoe-the-janitor won't see financially supporting lone nerds as a first priority.

Huh, I thought I was pretty clear that I meant an individual researcher employed by industry to do their research (" for CS in general - and especially for AI - you'll be just fine in industry.... Go where the incentives are better aligned for you. ") - was it not?

So, limiting research to projects small enough for a single individual, then? Because similar situations will and do arise in industrial research groups.
Post reply on HN