3 ms·

> The SEL decision was made on false premises and dishonestly represented to its staff, to the media and to parliament. I think that's pretty bad. But it wasn'

by nl 5y ago

> The SEL decision was made on false premises and dishonestly represented to its staff, to the media and to parliament. I think that's pretty bad. But it wasn't at all? Data61 said they were pivoting to AI. Trusted Systems research just isn't AI research. As the other reply here says, all the quotes in this post are micro-quotes taken out of context. The context is "Data61 is AI". It's very possible to disagree with that policy decision, but saying it is lies is just wrong?

ggm 5y ago
The reasons why they did the pivot were mis-represented. They said they were doing it. They did a very poor job of justifying it in cost/benefit terms which a public agency like CSIRO can work with. It is understood CSIRO has a strong bias now to self-funded work, which goes to commercialisation. its dogged it since the formation. The problem is that the IPR vesting and profit outcomes of work done can sometimes be misunderstood against wider gains. Standards work (for instance) often generate no profit. Does that mean CSIRO should stop doing them? Data61 "was" formal methods. A lot of their work was in proofs. They applied the proofs to etherium, and they generated a huge amount of interest in formally verified blockchain contracts (which btw I think are bunkum) but the actual value was in the understanding of proof systems and verification. Australia is going into the Aerospace sector quite heavily. This is an area where verified systems are very important. The "AI" component of proof is slim. Arguably there is an ML component, but having continued role in SEL and trusted platforms and applying proof systems and verification was a good thing in my opinion, and was not justified in being ditched. It looks to me like a poor long-term engagement strategy to walk away from a foundation.

3 ms·

> The SEL decision was made on false premises and dishonestly represented to its staff, to the media and to parliament. I think that's pretty bad. But it wasn'

by nl 5y ago

ggm 5y ago
The reasons why they did the pivot were mis-represented. They said they were doing it. They did a very poor job of justifying it in cost/benefit terms which a public agency like CSIRO can work with. It is understood CSIRO has a strong bias now to self-funded work, which goes to commercialisation. its dogged it since the formation. The problem is that the IPR vesting and profit outcomes of work done can sometimes be misunderstood against wider gains. Standards work (for instance) often generate no profit. Does that mean CSIRO should stop doing them? Data61 "was" formal methods. A lot of their work was in proofs. They applied the proofs to etherium, and they generated a huge amount of interest in formally verified blockchain contracts (which btw I think are bunkum) but the actual value was in the understanding of proof systems and verification. Australia is going into the Aerospace sector quite heavily. This is an area where verified systems are very important. The "AI" component of proof is slim. Arguably there is an ML component, but having continued role in SEL and trusted platforms and applying proof systems and verification was a good thing in my opinion, and was not justified in being ditched. It looks to me like a poor long-term engagement strategy to walk away from a foundation.