4 ms·
> every paper has an angle Not really sure if this is true in general. May be true of commercial entities, but I really hope this isn't true in general. > Fur
by kovac 6y ago
> every paper has an angle
Not really sure if this is true in general. May be true of commercial entities, but I really hope this isn't true in general.
> Furthermore, ceding the technological lead and removing the business incentive likely has defense (read: offense) implications on the global stage.
Does it though? Uncovering faults and cracks of a system does exactly the opposite. Discouraging experts from looking for those faults may give the perception of lead, for a while, but is a dangerous mistake to make in the long run.
Interfering with experts by pulling them out of, say, academia by paying them more and turning them into your PR tools, I think, is detrimental to the advancement of technology. We may be losing a whole generation of scientists to AdTech when they could have been doing more worthwhile work elsewhere(which, by the way, is why we are here in the first place - someone toiled away at a university to come up with a genius idea to design an artificial perceptron).
As to your claim about whether these companies will play a pivotal role in paradigm shifting technology advancements like fundamental research has in the past remains yet to be seen.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chaboud 6y agoI don't think that uncovering faults and cracks is a disincentive. Prohibiting use of machine learning techniques and technologies definitely reduces the addressible market, and, thus, profit incentive. There are plenty of reasons to do research and make strides, but "big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" is one we have to acknowledge the existence of. As far as paper angle goes, sometimes the angle is "what we spent the last year doing is noteworthy enough to warrant publication". Read every paper skeptically. Make it prove to you that it has the data, rigor, and reproducibility to support its claims.