4 ms·

Have you used speech recognition (or speech synthesis) lately? It's incredible, leaps and bounds ahead of where it was a decade ago. Not everything in ML is as

Have you used speech recognition (or speech synthesis) lately? It's incredible, leaps and bounds ahead of where it was a decade ago. Not everything in ML is as rosy as the papers make it out to be, but to call it a "hoax" is going way too far.

aborsy 6y ago
There are a lot of things that look incredible, but don’t constitute much progress scientifically. For example, a rocket landing on moon looks incredible. But I don’t think physicists would consider moon landing notable progress. So, with data and compute you could do applications.
- btilly 6y ago
  Do you have any idea how many areas of science were opened up by our attempt to get to the Moon? The range is literally from discovering that unit tests are good in software to discovering the Van Allen belts to learning about the geology and history of the Moon from the rocks that we brought back. Could we have learned more science by doing something else with the money? Of course. But it is a dramatic overstatement to say that the Apollo program didn't "constitute any progress scientifically."
  - aborsy 6y ago
    Yes, and I tell you very few if any. If you don’t believe an anonymous person here, see what prominent physicists say clearly on this topic, e.g., Steven Weinberg. This is not to dismiss experimental research which is quite important, but to distinguish (experimental or theoretical) science from product development.
    - btilly 6y ago
      Why don't we see what he says? In https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 you'll find that he is very critical of manned spaceflight in general, but about Apollo he says, "No, at the time of Apollo, the astronauts did do some useful things. They brought back Lunar samples. They placed a laser reflector on the Moon that has been used ever since to monitor the motion of the Moon with incredible accuracy." Earlier in the same interview he criticized NASA for canceling Apollo 18 and 19 because he wanted the science that would have been done, to be done. I guess he didn't say what you thought he said. That said, his criticism of NASA's efforts with manned flight isn't because he doesn't think that it is useless to go to the moon. It is because it takes a lot of work to get humans there, and robots can do the job much more safely and cheaper. Which also explains why he thought Apollo was useful. At the time the technology of robotics was much worse so humans were the only way to do the job.
      - aborsy 6y ago
        He is critical of manned space flight and says plainly in a number of his talks, recalling from the top of my head, “man spaceflight has costed such and such billions of dollars and has produced nothing of scientific value” or “this was sold to public as a scientific project but it’s nothing of the sort”, and that “it’s all done on earth.” He mentions one area, but then says, “but actually that could have been done much cheaper using unmanned robots” I agree costs are issue here; money that could have been better spent.
        btilly 6y ago
        Here is the unmanned rockets quote that you refer to. Those were useful things that could have been done by unmanned rockets, but in those days, the state of the art in computers and robotics was not what it is now. The whole "the state of the art" bit I understand as saying that with modern computers and robotics, unmanned vehicles could have done the job. But they didn't have advanced enough computers and robotics at the time.
      - aborsy 6y ago
        By the way, Edward Teller shared the same view. If I recall correctly, an interviewer asks him about the scientific impact of landing on moon. He says, “it was there, but it not that great“ and “I think it was money spent on public amusement, and from all money spent on public amusement this money was best spent” I am not pushing this view; just a relevant comment. — update, exact statement I think this was not money spent on science. It was money spent on an extremely important aspect of technology, and it was money spent on public amusement. And from all money spent on public amusement this chunk of money was best spent. [The scientific value], it was there but it was not very great.
- whistle650 6y ago
  This feels like a very sterile view of science and it's actual history and practice. I was recently remembering how Marconi's puzzling success in sending a transatlantic wireless signal stimulated the discovery of the ionosphere.
fungiblecog 6y ago
I think the "hoax" is conflating ML with a general artificial intelligence

aborsy 6y ago

There are a lot of things that look incredible, but don’t constitute much progress scientifically. For example, a rocket landing on moon looks incredible. But I don’t think physicists would consider moon landing notable progress. So, with data and compute you could do applications.

btilly 6y ago
Do you have any idea how many areas of science were opened up by our attempt to get to the Moon? The range is literally from discovering that unit tests are good in software to discovering the Van Allen belts to learning about the geology and history of the Moon from the rocks that we brought back. Could we have learned more science by doing something else with the money? Of course. But it is a dramatic overstatement to say that the Apollo program didn't "constitute any progress scientifically."
- aborsy 6y ago
  Yes, and I tell you very few if any. If you don’t believe an anonymous person here, see what prominent physicists say clearly on this topic, e.g., Steven Weinberg. This is not to dismiss experimental research which is quite important, but to distinguish (experimental or theoretical) science from product development.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Why don't we see what he says? In https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 you'll find that he is very critical of manned spaceflight in general, but about Apollo he says, "No, at the time of Apollo, the astronauts did do some useful things. They brought back Lunar samples. They placed a laser reflector on the Moon that has been used ever since to monitor the motion of the Moon with incredible accuracy." Earlier in the same interview he criticized NASA for canceling Apollo 18 and 19 because he wanted the science that would have been done, to be done. I guess he didn't say what you thought he said. That said, his criticism of NASA's efforts with manned flight isn't because he doesn't think that it is useless to go to the moon. It is because it takes a lot of work to get humans there, and robots can do the job much more safely and cheaper. Which also explains why he thought Apollo was useful. At the time the technology of robotics was much worse so humans were the only way to do the job.
    - aborsy 6y ago
      He is critical of manned space flight and says plainly in a number of his talks, recalling from the top of my head, “man spaceflight has costed such and such billions of dollars and has produced nothing of scientific value” or “this was sold to public as a scientific project but it’s nothing of the sort”, and that “it’s all done on earth.” He mentions one area, but then says, “but actually that could have been done much cheaper using unmanned robots” I agree costs are issue here; money that could have been better spent.
      - btilly 6y ago
        Here is the unmanned rockets quote that you refer to. Those were useful things that could have been done by unmanned rockets, but in those days, the state of the art in computers and robotics was not what it is now. The whole "the state of the art" bit I understand as saying that with modern computers and robotics, unmanned vehicles could have done the job. But they didn't have advanced enough computers and robotics at the time.
    - aborsy 6y ago
      By the way, Edward Teller shared the same view. If I recall correctly, an interviewer asks him about the scientific impact of landing on moon. He says, “it was there, but it not that great“ and “I think it was money spent on public amusement, and from all money spent on public amusement this money was best spent” I am not pushing this view; just a relevant comment. — update, exact statement I think this was not money spent on science. It was money spent on an extremely important aspect of technology, and it was money spent on public amusement. And from all money spent on public amusement this chunk of money was best spent. [The scientific value], it was there but it was not very great.
whistle650 6y ago
This feels like a very sterile view of science and it's actual history and practice. I was recently remembering how Marconi's puzzling success in sending a transatlantic wireless signal stimulated the discovery of the ionosphere.

fungiblecog 6y ago

I think the "hoax" is conflating ML with a general artificial intelligence