3 ms·
> It's good general advice, but frankly I think it doesn't address some of the major pitfalls - namely the top one: personnel. Just for some context [0]: Lesli
by sndean 10y ago
> It's good general advice, but frankly I think it doesn't address some of the major pitfalls - namely the top one: personnel.
Just for some context [0]: Leslie works at a facility where there's (generally) no shortage of subject matter experts. Recently, within the last ~6 months, he's been pulled into at least a few groups where lots of biologist, chemist, and others who essentially know nothing about DL are trying to get projects off the ground. The shortage he's experiencing is probably on the ML/DL side.
[0] I work with Leslie and have received his advice on projects.
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoIn fact the USG broadly, specifically the DoD is taking a huge step forward to try and build ML into everything. I was invited to talk with the Defense Innovation Board small group this last Tuesday with SecDef Mattis, Eric Schmidt et al. and it's actually becoming a HUGE deal, one that nobody inside the USG is prepared to address, so I'm not surprised Leslie is bombarded with these requests. I'll go back to the point though that the USG is critically short of competent ML personnel.
- sndean 10y ago> I'll go back to the point though that the USG is critically short of competent ML personnel. Definitely agree with that. And from what I've heard they're having a terrible time trying to hire. Especially where we're at, where a PhD required, the USG won't be able to compete on pay (?).
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoIt's a mix between these three things: 1. Being ethically opposed to working for the DoD 2. Terrible (relative) wages 3. Working environment dominated by bureaucracy Some seriously big obstacles considering the options.