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

Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#121

Post by kome »

Invictus0 wrote: post #117
z3c0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Science" is not solely the scientific method - it's the democratization of your methodology to enable the replication of the results, towards the goal of determining their soundness.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Exactly. They are applying the scientific method, but they aren't contributing to science. it will be science when it's open and people can integrate the new knowledge in a broader set of knowledge.

Science is knowledge. The etymology of science is to split stuff and understand how it work. But from late 14c in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge".

"Private" science is not science. It's some esoteric stuff.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#122

Post by nradov »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #88
api wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is usually that science can't pay even a fraction of what you can make in industry right now, and meanwhile the good science jobs are often in high cost of living places.

I really think we need a UBI so that people who want to can afford to do science how many drug addicts less motivated to quit is a scientist less motivated to maximize clicks worth? It's gotta be more than zero.

No thanks. I'm not willing to pay higher taxes just so that we can have a few more academics doing low-value AI research.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#123

Post by bannedbybros »

p1esk wrote: post #50
speed_spread wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, core physics leading to Fusion reactors and FTL travel seen much more important to me than AI that can make convincing robocalls and generate furry porn stories.

How about AI that can do physics better than any human?

[dead]

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#124

Post by rcpt »

z3c0 wrote: post #119
Invictus0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Yes, that is exactly the point. "Research" and "Scientific Research" are not inextricably linked - I work in an R&D department, and not all research we do is scientific. We do have scientific research, but it's handled very differently from the PoC type of work that occurs more broadly. We are forced to choose between handing out trade secrets in exchange for gaining more soundness in our theories, or keeping them sh…

Sounds like a lot of pedantry tbqh

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#125

Post by photochemsyn »

Invictus0 wrote: post #117
z3c0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Science" is not solely the scientific method - it's the democratization of your methodology to enable the replication of the results, towards the goal of determining their soundness.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Alchemists were doing research 600 years ago but they never shared their results with others and used arcane syntax to record those results which nobody else could understand. This didn't lead to much progress in the field of chemical knowledge, because it was just continual reinvention of the wheel.

The scientific (and then, industrial) revolution didn't begin until researchers started sharing their results in open literature form, or at conferences, or within bodies like Britain's Royal Institution. Dissemination of knowledge is absolutely part of science.

Similarly, a fundamental necessity in science is independent replication of results, and that's definitely not possible with closed secretive research done in the alchemical mode.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#126

Post by rcpt »

kome wrote: post #121
Invictus0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Exactly. They are applying the scientific method, but they aren't contributing to science. it will be science when it's open and people can integrate the new knowledge in a broader set of knowledge. Science is knowledge. The etymology of science is to split stuff and understand how it work. But from late 14c in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge". "Private" science is not science. It's some esoter…

What about scientists that don't publish all their data and code? Are they also not contributing to science?

OpenAI, even without saying how the model works, has been hugely influential in science.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#127

Post by bheadmaster »

kome wrote: post #121
Invictus0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Exactly. They are applying the scientific method, but they aren't contributing to science. it will be science when it's open and people can integrate the new knowledge in a broader set of knowledge. Science is knowledge. The etymology of science is to split stuff and understand how it work. But from late 14c in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge". "Private" science is not science. It's some esoter…

I don't buy the argument that "public" science is the only real science. You can define it that way, but I don't see any reason to.

"Public" science is just a special case of "restricted" science, such that the set of people the knowledge is restricted to is equal to the set of all humans.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#128

Post by hyperbovine »

dmd wrote: post #104
sseagull wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, there's more to academia that professors. There's a growing number of research scientists (particularly in software), as well as positions national labs (if you count that as pseudo-academia). There's also lots of room in applying AI techniques to other areas of science (again, outside of professorships)

Yep. But we get paid at academic rates. I stay for the relaxed lifestyle, not the salary.

Then this post is not aimed at you, obviously.

Re: Choose Your Weapon: Survival Strategies for Depressed AI Academics

#130

Post by Invictus0 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #125
Invictus0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?

Alchemists were doing research 600 years ago but they never shared their results with others and used arcane syntax to record those results which nobody else could understand. This didn't lead to much progress in the field of chemical knowledge, because it was just continual reinvention of the wheel. The scientific (and then, industrial) revolution didn't begin until researchers started sharing their results in open…

What if the science is disseminated within a closed group? For instance, suppose the classified research is shared with other people with a security clearance. That still wouldn't be science? Or suppose scientists at universities shared their research with scientists at other universities, but not the general public: that wouldn't be science either?
Post reply on HN