Live data from Hacker News

Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

plus.google.com

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#31
This is exciting for Hinton I'm sure, but also somewhat worrying for broader community. Hinton has always been very open with his research:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/science/scientists-see-adv...

One of the most striking aspects of the research led by Dr. Hinton is that it has taken place largely without the patent restrictions and bitter infighting over intellectual property that characterize high-technology fields.

“We decided early on not to make money out of this, but just to sort of spread it to infect everybody,” he said. “These companies are terribly pleased with this.”

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#32
post #26

Google is sucking all the talent and the brain of the world.. i wish at least that the efforts would get published in new papers and open source software.. Or the world will enter into a dark age of knowledge, ruled by huge corporations, and everybody else having to share the crumbs that fall of the table.. I hope that not all big minds fall of for companies.. or at least that companies start to commit with knowledge…

> i wish at least that the efforts would get published in new papers You mean like this very large list? http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html > and open source software Or this also very large list? https://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google

Dont get me wrong.. google is much better than its "predecessors" in that field.. eg: microsoft, apple, ibm.. but in the end is only one company, with its capital open in the stock market, with boards and everything else.. while google now is half good/half evil.. who can garantee that in the future when larry and sergey goes away.. that the company wont be ruled by a Larry ellison clone?

ps: while google have a pretty much decent portfolio of open source and papers floating around.. its more about "marginal software" for google...

the core of its knowledge about the business still a secret.. what would be of the world now and the cloud economy without Doug Cutting, that do it all by himself?

In one sentence: is only ONE company rulled by the capital market and profits and thats pretty scary.. thats all :s

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#33
post #3

Sigh. I don't know whether I'm alone in being saddened that many of the excellent thinkers of our time, who once might have spent their lives probing the the very limits of our comprehension in their field, now end up comfortably turning their minds to the services of (in the long term) rather short sighted commercial ends. I can imagine that this sentiment is probably against the prevailing HN mood, but I've been th…

You have this impression of universities that i don't believe has been true for at least 100 years, if not more. Research professors at schools have been mostly funded by either commercial or military interests for a very long time now. Even in non-direct cases, universities have "tech transfer" offices that are commercializing stuff, and continued funding often depends on that. If you are going to claim this model i…

The Bayh-Dole act is less than 100 years old, but it is in my view one of the major causes of the phenomenon you describe.

(It should also be, incidentally, taught as one of the great examples of unintended consequences: by all accounts it was designed to increase the independence of universities by letting them keep the monies they got from commercialization. Then somewhere along the way policy-makers realized Bayh-Dole was a great excuse to encourage universities to do tech transfer. And now essentially every grant that doesn't have some tech transfer proposal is almost automatically in trouble when compared against those that do.)

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#34
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There must be a lot of genuinely cutting edge research into machine learning,classification,NLP etc going on in there. Does the research get published or otherwise make it outside of the Googleplex? Serious question.

To be honest... kind of. They release papers but most of the layers at the bottom are Google proprietary. Certainly the source code is proprietary. Hell, even most of the information about GFS is proprietary, despite having a successor. From an academic perspective, their disclosure is kind of crap.

It's always been interesting to me that someone publishing a paper in computer science (especially someone working at a University) would not want to open source the code that produced those results. It's the best kind of repeatable experiment.

I recently went looking for any code published by Hinton, since I've been doing some neural network research as a hobby, but was unable to find any at all.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#35
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i wish at least that the efforts would get published in new papers You mean like this very large list? http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html > and open source software Or this also very large list? https://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google

Dont get me wrong.. google is much better than its "predecessors" in that field.. eg: microsoft, apple, ibm.. but in the end is only one company, with its capital open in the stock market, with boards and everything else.. while google now is half good/half evil.. who can garantee that in the future when larry and sergey goes away.. that the company wont be ruled by a Larry ellison clone? ps: while google have a pret…

I think this is unfair to at least Microsoft Research, which as far as I know has outpublished Google by a wide margin. (Full disclosure - I'm a contractor working on F#-related stuff at MSR)

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest... kind of. They release papers but most of the layers at the bottom are Google proprietary. Certainly the source code is proprietary. Hell, even most of the information about GFS is proprietary, despite having a successor. From an academic perspective, their disclosure is kind of crap.

It's always been interesting to me that someone publishing a paper in computer science (especially someone working at a University) would not want to open source the code that produced those results. It's the best kind of repeatable experiment. I recently went looking for any code published by Hinton, since I've been doing some neural network research as a hobby, but was unable to find any at all.

[deleted]

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#38
post #2

So is Google now more appealing to academics than academia?

In a way, yes. Research in industry has the advantage that you don't have to "waste" your time applying for grants in order to fund your own research group. A lot of people seem to live in an illusion that professors actually spend most of their time doing research, they are the managers of research groups more than anything else and growing those research groups is hard work and takes up close to all of your time (then add teaching to this). You are unlikely to have more than a few permanent researchers under you and these researchers will most likely be trying to leave within a few year and get a professorship of their own.

Add to this that it is an enormous pain to solve engineering problems at a university, you usually have to hand this to students, limiting what you can produce and maintain. The best I have ever seen for a group was a single full-time software engineer and this was at arguably the most prestigious university in the world. And don't get me started on the fact that there is a poor incentive to produce good software in academia, even though said software can be essential to make research possible.

I don't know Hinton in person, but I can imagine that at his age both the possibility of something new and the promise of a strong engineering and financial backing for a large group is enormously tempting (also, do they force professors into retirement or start denying them grants in Canada?). Oh, and to those pointing out the potential salary, if my knowledge of the financial situation of professors that have been on tenure is generalisable I would be surprised if personal finances would mean much at this point.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont get me wrong.. google is much better than its "predecessors" in that field.. eg: microsoft, apple, ibm.. but in the end is only one company, with its capital open in the stock market, with boards and everything else.. while google now is half good/half evil.. who can garantee that in the future when larry and sergey goes away.. that the company wont be ruled by a Larry ellison clone? ps: while google have a pret…

I think this is unfair to at least Microsoft Research, which as far as I know has outpublished Google by a wide margin. (Full disclosure - I'm a contractor working on F#-related stuff at MSR)

As I am not a contractor or affiliated with MSR in any way, I can back you up. In my field MSR is light years ahead of Google when it comes to research impact. Google has been gaining a stronger presence and they are generally seen as more innovative. But for those of my colleagues that want an industry research job, MSR and Google are both very attractive, the old stable one and the new kid in town.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton has joined Google

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest... kind of. They release papers but most of the layers at the bottom are Google proprietary. Certainly the source code is proprietary. Hell, even most of the information about GFS is proprietary, despite having a successor. From an academic perspective, their disclosure is kind of crap.

Plenty of academic research papers don't have code either. "Hadoop was derived from Google's MapReduce and Google File System (GFS) papers." So apparently the disclosure was good enough to give you that :) http://www.slideshare.net/jbellis/cassandra-open-source-bigt... Shows that cassandra is based on the bigtable paper, among others (hbase i believe was as well). Their disclosure is apparently good enough to get fol…

You're looking at this from an engineer's perspective. Yeah, great, we can build Cassandra -- who cares? Google papers have tons of performance benchmarks -- how is it scientific if none of those are reproducible?

Am I defending academics who can't or won't turn over all their data? No, of course not, but most of them don't try to pretend you can do science and still be proprietary.

P.S. I'm not talking about all companies. Intel and MSR turn over a bunch of stuff. I'm talking specifically about Google.

Post reply on HN