61–70 of 95 posts
What international leadership in AI does the UK have? any models produced?
DeepMind obviously, but also top ranking universities working on AI like Edinburgh and Oxbridge.
The US is five times larger than the UK, so no it’s not likely to be comparable. But the UK is up there.
Reading between the lines - actually, just reading the lines - it sounds like another organisation that got infested with the kind of people who are apt to ruin organisations, and perhaps an attempt it being made to fumigate it, and they don't like that.
A lot of academic researchers who couldn’t get jobs elsewhere ended up there.
The org is fundamentally dysfunctional according to an insider I spoke to. They blamed leadership.
They should have isolated it from academia - no hires from universities allowed, only hiring people who had previously worked in industry for the last few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the HQ, the only AI researcher I know personally is an American who moved to London to work on AI with DeepMind well after the acquisition.
The registered HQ and a large research center are in London, but ownership, executive control, substantial staffing, a big fraction of the training/serving compute, and the commercialization pathway run through Alphabet's U.S. operations, so the work is, in practical and legal senses, U.S.-based... See also https://gwern.net/doc/reinforcement-learning/deepmind/2019-d... "As part of a wider group reorganisation, the C…
Since I didn't do that, I'm not sure how that is relevant or productive.
> work is, in practical and legal senses, U.S.-based...
This seems factually false. The work happening there has to comply with UK laws, not US laws and the practical locus of researchers located there provides a pool of talent that makes it a better place to do an AI startup than places that lack it.
The point is that London is enough of a research hub in AI for it to be worth maintaining a significant research presence there and to even make researchers interested in relocating there.
DeepMind is obviously foriegn owned and controlled now, which does limit the UK's ability to exert control of and profit from it. That only makes weakening the institutions they do control, like ATI, more significant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as Douglas Adams stated in the problem with ruling axiom, is that under no circumstance should you allow someone who gets themselves in a position to rule, rule.
> under no circumstance should you allow someone who gets themselves in a position to rule, rule. Unfortunately the opposite is also true, as anyone who's served on a non-profit board with noncommital members knows.
Reading between the lines - actually, just reading the lines - it sounds like another organisation that got infested with the kind of people who are apt to ruin organisations, and perhaps an attempt it being made to fumigate it, and they don't like that.
Without knowing any details, I'm guessing what's happened is the inevitable result that befalls organizations as predicted by Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bure…
If you change the sex and it becomes a sexist statement, it was always a sexist statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without knowing any details, I'm guessing what's happened is the inevitable result that befalls organizations as predicted by Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bure…
And as Douglas Adams stated in the problem with ruling axiom, is that under no circumstance should you allow someone who gets themselves in a position to rule, rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as Douglas Adams stated in the problem with ruling axiom, is that under no circumstance should you allow someone who gets themselves in a position to rule, rule.
At least some greek states used to assign leadership in a lottery system designed in such a way partially to avoid the issues with this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleroterion
I think a reasonable compromise would be to elect a top 2-3 and then choose randomly between them.
Reading between the lines - actually, just reading the lines - it sounds like another organisation that got infested with the kind of people who are apt to ruin organisations, and perhaps an attempt it being made to fumigate it, and they don't like that.
AKA academics. A lot of academic researchers who couldn’t get jobs elsewhere ended up there. The org is fundamentally dysfunctional according to an insider I spoke to. They blamed leadership. They should have isolated it from academia - no hires from universities allowed, only hiring people who had previously worked in industry for the last few years.
Now this may be difficult in the UK because all jobs pay two quid a year, you have to live in a closet somewhere with a name like Pennyfarthing-upon-Longbottoms, and you can't get air conditioning without permission from the king.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that iPhones are assembled in China, India and Vietnam. Would those countries issue press releases on "their leadership in iPhones"?
I'm sure representatives of those countries love to say so, especially when talking to third parties about their expertise in manufacturing: "Yes, here in Zhengzhou, CN we're leaders in electronics manufacturing - the iPhone is assembled here at Foxconn!" However, Apple (headquartered in the US) loves to issue press releases describing how their products are "Designed by Apple in California[, USA]" even though a lot…