29 ms·

i think one needs to let go of those questions. this is fundamental research that might yield enormous benefits. yesz there are more efficient ways currently(!

i think one needs to let go of those questions. this is fundamental research that might yield enormous benefits. yesz there are more efficient ways currently(!) available , but that frankly doesn't matter yet. we are now busy figuring out the fundamentals. i personally think this research yielded a very cool insight. namely that you can fix the problem of decreased performance when transferring a learned model on a supercomputer to a neuromorphic chip. this is very cool

AussieWog93 5y ago
Are you intimate with the literature the way GP is? I studied a different field (application of machine learning to brain-machine interfaces), but I would (and still do) regularly see completely mundane research presented as something groundbreaking by a person/institution seeking clout. I've actually pointed out the bullshit a couple of times here, and received very similar responses to yours. I think it's a case of cutting-edge, not-widely-deployed technology seeming really exciting to someone hearing about it for the first time, even if the research itself does nothing particularly new compared to a few years ago.
- mpfundstein 5y ago
  I feel your pain. seriously! i worked 2 years on deep learning for crowd counting and 99% of all papers (and corresponding press releases) were utter crap. Super minor improvements were presented as the big new thing. But thats how the field is. Everyone trying to get tenure, so people need to scream loudly from the trees what assume shit they are doing. I for one just learned to ignore it and just look at the merit of a paper and what it contributes.
igorkraw 5y ago
I addressed this in some sister comments(including similar work tbsz transferred to other types of devices), but specifically for your comment: in my view, science has higher standards for presentation and communication than start-up submarine posts, and the fact that we are still relying on GPUs to train and other avenues to do this exist is relevant to asses it. I am happy about basic research being done and do not think every paper needs to set a SotA or change the world - but overhype is exactly why every paper needs to try selling it as such, because if you don't go viral and make a big impact on main media, your career might suffer. Hence install of being able to say "we made something cool, a lot of work left to be done", papers need to conjure up a paradigm shift put of every publication (again, not bashing the authors, just the system)

AussieWog93 5y ago

Are you intimate with the literature the way GP is? I studied a different field (application of machine learning to brain-machine interfaces), but I would (and still do) regularly see completely mundane research presented as something groundbreaking by a person/institution seeking clout. I've actually pointed out the bullshit a couple of times here, and received very similar responses to yours. I think it's a case of cutting-edge, not-widely-deployed technology seeming really exciting to someone hearing about it for the first time, even if the research itself does nothing particularly new compared to a few years ago.

mpfundstein 5y ago
I feel your pain. seriously! i worked 2 years on deep learning for crowd counting and 99% of all papers (and corresponding press releases) were utter crap. Super minor improvements were presented as the big new thing. But thats how the field is. Everyone trying to get tenure, so people need to scream loudly from the trees what assume shit they are doing. I for one just learned to ignore it and just look at the merit of a paper and what it contributes.

igorkraw 5y ago

I addressed this in some sister comments(including similar work tbsz transferred to other types of devices), but specifically for your comment: in my view, science has higher standards for presentation and communication than start-up submarine posts, and the fact that we are still relying on GPUs to train and other avenues to do this exist is relevant to asses it. I am happy about basic research being done and do not think every paper needs to set a SotA or change the world - but overhype is exactly why every paper needs to try selling it as such, because if you don't go viral and make a big impact on main media, your career might suffer. Hence install of being able to say "we made something cool, a lot of work left to be done", papers need to conjure up a paradigm shift put of every publication (again, not bashing the authors, just the system)