3 ms·
> That is not true for academic papers in computer science and particularly in machine learning were contributions are expected to have some sort of practical a
by esoterica 6y ago
> That is not true for academic papers in computer science and particularly in machine learning were contributions are expected to have some sort of practical application that is at least possible to foresee.
This is 100% not true for computer science and I don't know why you think it's true. There's are entire branches of computer science (e.g. complexity theory) that are highly theoretical and are certainly not geared towards immediate practical application.
Even in more applied branches of computer science like ML there are many papers that are geared more towards the fundamental research side of things.
> saying that it aims to "learn a simulator [for robotic agents] by simply watching an agent interact with an environment".
Saying that a paper could lead to a useful application down the line is not the same that saying that the paper is intended to describe the schematics for a specific useful application.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoWell of course, it's not 100% true- who said anything about 100%? There are theoretical branches of computer science; but most of computer science is not purely theoretical. Certainly machine learning (and more broadly speaking, much of AI) is like I say. I'm not sure who brought up a schematic? The bit I quoted is taken from the paper and it's a clear attempt to motivate the paper's approach as having a practical application. To clarify, do you disagree with that?