5 ms·
I saw a very humorous twitter exchange between a bioinformatician and IBM Watson's twitter account. The scientist asked them to provide any peer-reviewed ML pub
by et2o 9y ago
I saw a very humorous twitter exchange between a bioinformatician and IBM Watson's twitter account. The scientist asked them to provide any peer-reviewed ML publications and the best they could do was an abstract at a regional conference no-one has heard of. And it was a terrible abstract.
It's completely marketing. IBM still has a good name among people who don't know much about technology. They're trading on this and the current saturation of 'machine learning' in the popular press.
- sgt101 9y agoThat's mad as IBM have loads of peer reviewed ML publications. 3 minutes of searching : http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_pubs.php?grp=5443 http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_pubs.... http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_pubs.php?grp=4384 http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_pubs.... c'mon
- et2o 9y agoI should have added: healthcare. No shit IBM research has publications, they have their own journal. Also, 15 publications in 3 years is pathetic. c'mon
- sgt101 9y agoWell, the operational people will struggle to publish because it won't be on their scorecard, so effectively they won't be paid for it. Additionally many of them won't have any skills relevant to creating an academic publication and no nice professor to help them do it. So if IBM are going to publish it will be their lab. In terms of publication rates, in universities it's a mill. All academics are measured on publication impact and because of the arbitrary and self reinforcing nature of impact the way to win is to sprinkle as many papers around as you can get your graduate student factory as you possibly can. The question is what is the actual utility of minting out the same paper with nine different authors?