> No, this is only technically correct but actually wrong. In the example, they did in fact fail to build the AI, as is their job. "Recognize white faces" is a

> No, this is only technically correct but actually wrong. In the example, they did in fact fail to build the AI, as is their job. "Recognize white faces" is a lame research goal, "recognize human faces" is the real thing. The researcher's job is to make progress towards the research goal. Progress that doesn't solve the problem is still progress. Nobody's saying that the PULSE authors have solved their research goal of generating white faces. It's why papers have a "discussion and future work" section, which touched on the issue in the first version of their paper. It's why in their revised paper, they added a full discussion of bias and the issues in the current model. They did their job, but didn't solve the whole problem, which is too high a bar for any researcher. Science is incremental. That's how I interpreted LeCun's distinction between the researcher's job and the product builder's job.