3 ms·

Why? 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 ago
I 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 ago
  She 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 ago
    This 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 ago
More examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors
avn2109 10y ago
A nonspecialist such as Stewart may or may not have contributed to the paper. All the evidence we have now is her name on the paper (for which there is obviously a strong propaganda/PR incentive for all authors, so that evidence should be at least partially discounted). I certainly wouldn't consider this (fairly thin) body of evidence dispositive in an unusual situation such as this. I'd be more convinced by e.g. a string of commits on the paper's repo coming from her account (if we were confident that her account was really hers). The parent's skepticism seems to me entirely warranted, given the currently available evidence, and I don't think it should be downvoted.
pizza 10y ago
I was going to comment this exact article earlier but I thought I would just seem like some vocal minority. I'm glad you linked this.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago

I 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 ago
She 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 ago
  This 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 ago

More examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Bacon_number#Actors

avn2109 10y ago

A nonspecialist such as Stewart may or may not have contributed to the paper. All the evidence we have now is her name on the paper (for which there is obviously a strong propaganda/PR incentive for all authors, so that evidence should be at least partially discounted). I certainly wouldn't consider this (fairly thin) body of evidence dispositive in an unusual situation such as this. I'd be more convinced by e.g. a string of commits on the paper's repo coming from her account (if we were confident that her account was really hers). The parent's skepticism seems to me entirely warranted, given the currently available evidence, and I don't think it should be downvoted.

pizza 10y ago

I was going to comment this exact article earlier but I thought I would just seem like some vocal minority. I'm glad you linked this.