3 ms·
This sounds like a preemptive hit piece on a researcher who is now free to publish an article that is critical of Google researchers work and perhaps even shows
by isitmadeofglass 4y ago
This sounds like a preemptive hit piece on a researcher who is now free to publish an article that is critical of Google researchers work and perhaps even shows hints of outright fraud.
Nothing is brought forth except to say that this person had persistent claims of issues in the work with no proof provided to disprove these issues, and Google was preventing scientific publishing of the critical work to the point of threatening to fire the person and they now actually did.
The genders of the people involved are irrelevant but are pushed as some argument as to why the criticism is invalid. I’ll look forwards to seem the critique being published so the claims can be weighed against each other honestly.
- mike_hearn 4y agoIt's already available. WIRED link to it: http://47.190.89.225/pub/education/MLcontra.pdf http://47.190.89.225/pub/education/MLcontra.pdf Key to the dispute is section 3.2 (results).
- erdigious 4y agoSee my above comment - the choice of metrics in table 3.2 doesn't really make any sense. Also, they revived some ancient 1998 IBM chip, and report on that, for no clear reason. They call it a 2004 benchmark, but what actually happened is that in 2004 someone made some synthetic variants and put them into a dataset. This is not some widely used benchmark in the field. Given their highly questionable choice of metrics, I would not be surprised if there was some serious cherry-picking on the benchmark as well.