Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha well if you’re looking for a solid state physics PhD I’m on the market ;)
Not right now, unfortunately. Where are you located? We can discuss if you need any advice (username at me.com).
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Why did Google Brain exist?
321–328 of 328 posts
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly a lot of foundational ML research works for single-label image classification and not much else. ImageNet is a niche problem and way too much ML research is over-indexed on it. If you can make your problem look like ImageNet, you're going to do OK, but if not you effectively need to re-invent the wheel...
What you wrote was true until 4-5 years ago. These days almost all foundational ML research is about generative models.
It's still problematic.
The HEAR benchmark is a great eye-opener. They have basically three classes of audio tasks, and find very different models excel in each, with the best overall models being kinda-mindless ensembles of the ones that do well on particular problems.
So if you've got something that works well for text... it'll take a couple years and maybe an entire new branch of research (diffusion!) to work well for image generation. I have no idea what generative models for chemistry will look like, but will happily bet that it takes some significant specialized effort.
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you wrote was true until 4-5 years ago. These days almost all foundational ML research is about generative models.
It's still problematic. The HEAR benchmark is a great eye-opener. They have basically three classes of audio tasks, and find very different models excel in each, with the best overall models being kinda-mindless ensembles of the ones that do well on particular problems. So if you've got something that works well for text... it'll take a couple years and maybe an entire new branch of research (diffusion!) to work well…
I see two things currently happening in ML:
1. The era of ML benchmarks is ending. New models have to be and will be evaluated the same way human experts are evaluated.
2. Foundational models are becoming multi modal. There will be no separation of text and image generation. Sure, different methods will be used for each, but the learned representations of visual and textual objects in models like Stable Diffusion already live in the same conceptual space.
I don’t think there will be specialized generative models for chemistry two years from now. There will be GPT-5 (and similar competitors) which will be used to perform all kinds of research, including chemistry.
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not right now, unfortunately. Where are you located? We can discuss if you need any advice (username at me.com).
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Damn, my contact at LSU has moved. I know there’s a good group at UT Knoxville where they do great stuff with Oak Ridge’s neutron source but that’s not specifically ML. There are adverts regularly for post-docs at Los Alamos; they can be found on lanl.jobs . They work with various universities depending on the group and might point you to something.
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen both in bioinformatics, because the field is so wide now. 1) Bioinformatics as tool-building, algorithm-dev: you're right, you don't need to know much biology there if the problem is defined well. 2) Bioinformatics as a tool to answer biological questions: here I've seen ML-background people really struggle, either developing stuff that's not useful or reinventing-the-wheel-but-now-it's-deep-learning. I've…
In regards to 2), it sounds a bit directionless to be proposing stuff people don't need? Isn't that more of a problem of selecting relevant problems to solve, and getting supervision on your ideas?
Yeah that's the problem! The ML people and the biology or agriculture people don't talk, they're not in the same building. A biologist might see the ML-person's work only after it's published.
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still problematic. The HEAR benchmark is a great eye-opener. They have basically three classes of audio tasks, and find very different models excel in each, with the best overall models being kinda-mindless ensembles of the ones that do well on particular problems. So if you've got something that works well for text... it'll take a couple years and maybe an entire new branch of research (diffusion!) to work well…
I see two things currently happening in ML: 1. The era of ML benchmarks is ending. New models have to be and will be evaluated the same way human experts are evaluated. 2. Foundational models are becoming multi modal. There will be no separation of text and image generation. Sure, different methods will be used for each, but the learned representations of visual and textual objects in models like Stable Diffusion alr…
I think this is a bit over confident, though...
For example, AlphaFold just fundamentally isn't a language model, but is fundamentally useful. We'll still need these models that Do Stuff in many areas, and that will still involve benchmarks... Even if we're able to ask GPT-N+1 to design the next version of the model for us.
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Damn, my contact at LSU has moved. I know there’s a good group at UT Knoxville where they do great stuff with Oak Ridge’s neutron source but that’s not specifically ML. There are adverts regularly for post-docs at Los Alamos; they can be found on lanl.jobs . They work with various universities depending on the group and might point you to something.
I did email you, thanks!
Re: Why did Google Brain exist?
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you have me curious. Which laws, specifically?
The big one in the USA is the National Labor Relations Act, but this generally applies to group action. However, such group action can be literally publically posting about a job's work conditions. Here's a list of recent state laws in Washington, Oregon, and Maine, which prohibition certain kinds of NDAs (oriented toward unlawful activity, not general speech rights): https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/20…
Excellent, thank you.