3 ms·
Is this guy actually a researcher in the way most people would think of it? That is, someone who pushes the boundaries of science; who develops new AI techniqu
by rmah 7y ago
Is this guy actually a researcher in the way most people would think of it? That is, someone who pushes the boundaries of science; who develops new AI techniques or finds the hard boundaries of existing AI techniques; who finds new ways compose multiple AI techniques cohesively; who explores the theoretical foundations of AI.
Or is he someone who uses AI techniques to solve problems (and then wrote a paper about it)?
I can't help but wonder a bit.
- ssivark 7y agoFor better or worse, the definition of researcher has morphed into a combination of 1. Solves previously unsolved problems 2. Publishes papers sharing those solutions without regard to the kind/spirit/scope of problems solved. Since conference publications don’t have the same number constraints as journal papers, and are accepting of application-specific results, this explosion of what is considered “research” is somewhat inevitable. Also, there are a lot of people chasing this given the prestige associated with the title.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rlayton2 7y agoResearch needs people at the entire spread of the spectrum - from those making fundamental improvements to underlying theory, all the way to people running the thing to see if it works on actual problems people have (obviously in a robust and verifiable way).
- anjc 7y agoMost people would be wrong if they think that this is what all researchers do
- throwawayjava 7y agoYes. From his GH profile looks like he's a competitive applicant for ML engineering positions or perhaps a fellowship/residency/PhD program. So, a junior researcher at the level of a decent second or third year PhD student. A researcher, maybe someone you'd trust to build a prototype or product, lots of potential, but probably not someone you'd trust to run a research program.