8 ms·
Kristen Stewart co-authors AI paper
- melling 10y agoSomeone posted a link to the paper on HN a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443107 Here's the direct link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04928 https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04928
- congerous 10y agoI guess that's how you call peak hype.
- pizza 10y agoHype is not model-invariant
- kobeya 10y ago"Bhautik Joshi posted a paper to arXiv on the topic of some consulting work he did for a short film, and listed the producer and actor as co-authors to garner publicity."
- salem 10y agoNo, they actually did write parts of the paper. Leaving them out as co-authors would be misconduct.
- johansch 10y agoSource?
- pizza 10y agoIs any arXiv preprint more untrustworthy than any other or something [I mean, it's not viXra...]? I can't help but think it would be degrading to have your name on a paper and it be deemed too advanced to be your responsibility.. You could ask the first author directly, I suppose; https://twitter.com/bhautikj https://twitter.com/bhautikj
- johansch 10y agoMy question was directed at "salem" who stated "No, they actually did write parts of the paper.". That statement seemed like it should have reasoning behind it...
- sp332 10y agoThe paper is about how to iteratively tweak your rendering pipeline to achieve a certain look. It makes sense that the director of the movie would be involved in that process.
- sbierwagen 10y agoIf I tell someone to blur a background during postprocessing, do I also get a coauthor credit on a paper about gaussian photo manipulation?
- Mtinie 10y agoIf the particular blur in question has a unique characteristic, you should push for it, sure.
- sp332 10y agoSo, you didn't read the paper, huh?
- sbierwagen 10y agoI did. They describe using a Keras implementation, written by someone else, of style transfer, which was invented by someone else, to achieve a particular artistic effect. They use a pre-trained model. They don't even have to buy any hardware, since they used AWS GPU instances. It's a case study, nothing new has been accomplished here. Do I also get a Verge writeup if I publish a PDF to arxiv about how I compiled and installed tensorflow? The only reason we're talking about this paper is because the name of a Hollywood actress is on it, and because it has the AI buzzword. Look at the title: "Kristen Stewart co-authors AI paper". 113 points. The paper itself was submitted earlier, under its actual title, which does not mention Kristen Stewart: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443107 6 points! The paper is not very interesting. The only thing that makes it newsworthy is the coauthor.
- salem 10y agoMy source? I would ask what is the source of that quote? The article no longer contains it.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoActually, she's not an actor in the (short) film in question, she is the director as stated in TFA. The ML technique is applied to achieve a specific effect the director wanted to achieve. Did she submit PRs to TensorFlow? Probably not. Did she contribute to the paper? Most definitely, I think we can even go so far as to say it's plausible she fulfills the Vancouver criteria: Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or (..) AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work Assuming she at some point revised the paper critically for content, which is plausible, there is no denying she's on the author list.
- IshKebab 10y agoIt is plausible that she had some input to the paper beyond requesting the work, and artistic feedback. But it's definitely more likely that she didn't.
- wetmore 10y ago>But it's definitely more likely that she didn't. Why is it "definitely more likely"?
- ecopoesis 10y agoDuh. She's a girl and everyone knows girls can't program. </sarcasm>
- eric_the_read 10y agoPerhaps more charitably, because she has no known history of having done so, and her talents in the acting profession are not generally considered directly transferable.
- IshKebab 10y agoThe vast majority of programmers are men, and acting and AI research are pretty polar opposite activities. Most actors/actresses aren't tech geeks. I guess I'll get downvoted for this too because it sounds anti-women or something, but it is the unfortunate truth.
- zumatic 10y agoThat was my initial reaction, but if you look at section 2, both paragraphs could plausibly have been written by Stewart and/or Shapiro; all the images are authored by Stewart as the director.
- agumonkey 10y agoTrying to apply a technology is enough to publish ?
- rch 10y agoDefinitely. And I wouldn't be surprised to see more methods papers from movies going forward.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoWhat constitutes a publishable paper depends on the subfield and journal/conference. There are many computer science papers discussing the usability, implementation, application of tech ologies.
- kobeya 10y agoThere are basically no barriers to "publication" on arXiv.
- detaro 10y agoIf you can write something useful about the results or the things you discovered or developed in the process, sure. (Not in every venue of course, but in many) I don't know enough about the specific subfields involved here to guess where and if this specific example would likely pass.
- j2kun 10y agoWe have a new Erdos-Bacon number! (I assume)
- rawnlq 10y agoShe has a defined Erdős–Bacon number now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_numbe...
- pcl 10y agoThat Wikipedia vortex took me to Ruth-Aaron pairs: sequential numbers whose prime factors each sum to the same value. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth%E2%80%93Aaron_pair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth%E2%80%93Aaron_pair
- ramshorns 10y agoLooks like it's 9. Bhautik Joshi, first author on this paper, collaborated with Sébastien Ourselin on e.g. [1], and Sébastien Ourselin has an Erdős number of 5 [2]. So Stewart's Erdős number is at most 7. Her Bacon number is 2. 'We learned that Kristen Stewart has a Bacon number of two because she and Michael Sheen costarred together in "The Twilight Saga," and Sheen and Bacon starred in "Frost/Nixon."' [3] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220677921_A_quantitative_assessment_of_approaches_to_mesh_generation_for_surgical_simulation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220677921_A_quantit... [2] https://zbmath.org/collaboration-distance/?a=ourselin.sebastien&b=erdos.paul https://zbmath.org/collaboration-distance/?a=ourselin.sebast... [3] http://www.mtv.com/news/2442193/bacon-number-google/ http://www.mtv.com/news/2442193/bacon-number-google/
- sbierwagen 10y agoDoes the paper have to be peer-reviewed? The only arxiv reference on that wikipedia page is the same paper this thread is about.
- xyzzy4 10y agoI doubt she wrote a single word in that paper.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoWhy? It's not unheard of that an actress contributes to technology[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y agoI don't think I've ever heard the actor in question express anything interesting—let alone persuasive—about the universe. I'd call this a minimum for contributing to research. This looks like a blatant publicity stunt, to be even blunter.
- finnh 10y agoShe directed the movie, and provided the painting that was used for the "other half" of the style transfer - so was critical to creating both inputs and guiding the final result. That alone is more involvement than some PhD advisors have in papers they co-authored. And she may of course delved much further into the technical side of things that what I've described above.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y agoThis may speak more to the uselessness of what it means to be attached to a paper more than any one person. It still seems like the authorship is a means to an end of eyeballs. Academia drags its body slowly on....
- mikeash 10y agoMore examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors
- avn2109 10y ago
- ar15saveslives 10y agoLet's be honest, the paper is pretty mediocre, and her contribution is also questionable. But have no doubt, it will be (already has?) overblown with headers like "female actress can into AI".
- sigzero 10y agoMaybe it will be better than her acting?
- jmnicholson 10y agoIs this the anti-Kardashian index? https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0 https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...
- gumby 10y agoI read this article to find out who she was. I had assumed she was a noteworthy scientist I hadn't heard of.
- wetmore 10y agoWhy do people on HN love to mention how they haven't heard of someone conventionally famous?
- gumby 10y agoThank you for the condescension. It was a request for clarification in the title. I am sure there are plenty of people whom I consider "conventionally famous" whom you've never heard of. That doesn't make you an idiot.
- paulddraper 10y agoI've heard of Kristen Stewart, but only the actress, not the scientist. I assumed the same. "Ah well, suppose that must be a common name."
- kondro 10y agoI look at the comments here and it becomes blatantly obvious why we have trouble getting women into STEM.
- serge2k 10y agoI doubt it would have been that different if the person in question was Robert Pattinson. I think the condescension is more about a "lol as if some dumb actor knows anything about AI".
- kevinr 10y agohttps://www.google.com/patents/US2292387 https://www.google.com/patents/US2292387
- potatosoup 10y agoHow does it become obvious? (Not snark, actual question)
- pizza 10y agoWomen who do not follow the domestic norm are looked down upon in society. Beauvoir is explaining that woman referred as “the other.” She states, “What is a woman?’ […] The fact that I ask it is in itself significant. A man would never get the notion of writing a book on the peculiar situation of the human male. But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ‘I am a woman’; on this truth must be based all further discussion. A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man. […] It would be out of the question to reply: ‘And you think the contrary because you are a man,’ for it is understood that the fact of being a man is no peculiarity.” (34-5) As for man there is no need to define what is to be a man, there is no reason because they identified themselves as the superior part. Man represents both “the positive and the neutral,” which doesn’t need to be explained or defined, and it is self-explanatory. “Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in relation to herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.” (35) Men are the default setting and women are considered a recessive gender. “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other.” (35) It is like an asymmetrical comparison, but masculine and feminine aren’t asymmetrical. De Beauvoir defines women as the “Second sex” because women are defined in relation to men. Aristotle referred that women are “female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities.” De Beauvoir also points out that St. Thomas referred to the woman as the “imperfect man", the "incidental” being. unification of the symbols from current context with this paragraph are left as an exercise to the reader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Existentialist_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Existential...
- madars 10y agoReminds me of John Urschel: PhD candidate in mathematics (MIT) and offensive lineman for Ravens. Wrote six papers while playing in NFL. https://math.mit.edu/~urschel/ https://math.mit.edu/~urschel/
- shas3 10y agoJohn Urschel is a legit full-time mathematician. Stewart's coauthorship seems to have more to do with her skills as a director than computer scientist.
- muyuu 10y agoDoes she have a background in the field?