4 ms·
That claim by Jeff Dean has been more or less debunked. The real reason that Google demanded the paper not be published is that it is critical of models underly
by tomdell 6y ago
That claim by Jeff Dean has been more or less debunked. The real reason that Google demanded the paper not be published is that it is critical of models underlying the company’s fundamental business - the whole message from Jeff Dean is very misleading and states a bunch of other, unrelated things as the “real reason”.
- zaroth 6y agoIt would be very helpful to point to sources for the claim that Jeff Dean's explanation is debunked, rather than just claiming it has been. The timing of the submission for review, and the deadline for submission to publication seems like a simple factual statement that should be easily demonstrated as true or false.
- pseudalopex 6y agoSeveral Google employees said it wasn't the regular process.[1][2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25309488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25309488 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25309379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25309379
- uh_uh 6y agoDebunked by whom?
- hnuser123456 6y agoAI is far more energy efficient than creating the incalcuable number of human programmers required to directly program the same solutions. Writing NLP code with non-ML methods, to the same level of quality, would be essentially impossible without an operation on the scale of warfare. Even with the efficiency benefits that it already has, we all know ML still stands to be further optimized, and a lot of people are working on it. Comparing the exponential increase of "intelligence" of computers versus our own, computers will be as smart as humans with similar energy efficiency in around 50 years, and they require no cars, food, etc. It will be hard to criticize the efficiency of ML when it is already moreso than our biological selves, but it will be done, and we will be wholly outsmarted.