5 ms·

I defended my PhD in Computer Science in 2020. My dissertation was on "Rapid & robust modeling on small data regime", hence specifically focused on generalizati

I defended my PhD in Computer Science in 2020. My dissertation was on "Rapid & robust modeling on small data regime", hence specifically focused on generalization, network optimization & adversarial robustness. I also worked for a year with Microsoft Research in their ML group :) It was quite a fun ride

NHQ 4y ago
laserlight 4y ago
Thanks for clarifying. I think the question is more about sentience than ML. So, a PhD in philosophy would suit better your initial claim.
- stale2002 4y ago
  No it would not. Philosophy people wrap themselves up in so many circular self justifying presuppositions that they can make up whatever arguments they want to justify almost anything. It is much better to listen to people who study other, more falsifiable claims, in the material world.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    The commenter I previously replied to has a PhD in those “other” fields, yet I haven’t seen a falsifiable definition of sentience made by them. As a field of study, sentience has been a topic of philosophy more than ML. That’s why top-level comment’s claim of having a PhD in “this domain” is not apt. Comparative quality of studies in different domains is a different question.
    - srvmshr 4y ago
      I did. Each one of these dimensions can be independently evaluated. > Sentience broadly (& naively) covers the ability to independent thinking, rationalize outcomes, understand fear/threat, understand where it is wrong (conscience), decide based on unseen information & understand what it doesn't know. > comment’s claim of having a PhD in “this domain” is not apt C'mon, thats being disingenuous. People spent years poring on these topics, although we looked at it from the prism of computing. Elsewhere, I have pointed out that mentioning this detail is not about credential hopping: People on HN call you out for no reason for having an opinion. It has happened so many times that I don't risk commenting if required. Telling this extra information is just communicating we spent enough time on it to give somewhat informed discussion.
      - laserlight 4y ago
        Can you describe how you test for independent thinking? What does independent mean anyways? A decision tree can rationalize its outcomes. Does it count towards sentience? Is there an academic source for this definition of sentience? > Telling this extra information is just communicating we spent enough time on it to give somewhat informed discussion. Doing so is appeal to authority. When there is a claim of authority, it's very natural for it to be questioned. And those questions are based on subjective perception of authority.
        srvmshr 4y ago
        > Can you describe how you test for independent thinking? Lets take a simple case: If I give a set of toy blocks to an infant - they could take a variety of tasks unprompted : building new shape, categorizing them based on color, putting them back in shelf, calling out their shapes. If you gave the same setup without any further apriori information, what would you expect the ML model or a robotic device embodying a learning algorithm would do? Precisely nothing unless a task is designated. In the current advancement of ML, this task would lead nowhere. We aren't close to building the independent thinking capabilities of a toddler . If we define a purpose, it can match or exceed expectations. That is the purpose of embodied VQA direction in current research. > Doing so is appeal to authority. When there is a claim of authority, it's very natural for it to be questioned. You're welcome to question any claims. This is an incentive to me & makes me happy. It shows someone is willing to constructively discuss what I've learned. Its a win-win, as I see it. But I take mentioning the credential disclaimer as a mode of mental preservation. It doesn't feel nice sometimes to explain others with utmost sincerity to be called a "garden variety fraud" for no rhyme or reason whatsoever (It happened right in this HN post somewhere)
        jameshart 4y ago
        > If you gave the same setup without any further apriori information, what would you expect the ML model or a robotic device embodying a learning algorithm would do? Precisely nothing unless a task is designated. Google deepdream liked to draw dogs. But also, we don't really run most of these ML models in a way that gives them an opportunity to form their own thoughts. A typical GPT-3 run consists of instantiating the model, forcing it to experience a particular input, reading its 'reaction' off a bunch of output neurons, then euthanizing it. If you did the same sort of thing with a human mind - waking it from a coma, blasting a blipvert of information into the visual cortex, then read off the motor neuron states, before pulling the plug on it again, you also wouldn't likely see much sign of 'independent thinking'.
  - claudiawerner 4y ago
    This is an uncharitable view of philosophy without much evidence to show for it, especially when it comes to the philosophy of consciousness and philosophy of computing. Not to mention, falsifiability being taken as the criterion for knowledge was itself (mathematics and logical axioms are not 'falsifiable') a claim produced by a philosopher, and one which some commentators name as circular in itself. You're using a particular philosophy to discount philosophy of science on the whole, which is ironic.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > This is an uncharitable view of philosophy without much evidence to show for it Oh it has a lot of evidence. Just talk to any philosopher ever on any "meta" topic. Whether that be meta ethics, or meta epistemology, or meta whatever. They start with a conclusion that they want, such as dual-ism, or philosophy souls, or all sorts of things, and then they wrap themselves in obfuscating circles finding a justification than can't be tested in any way outside their own circular pre-suppositions that have no connection to the real world. > to discount philosophy of science on the whole When the philosophers start making testable predictions, that I can measure, as opposed to making stuff up in their own self referential assumptions, I will start taking them seriously.
      - claudiawerner 4y ago
        >They start with a conclusion that they want, such as dual-ism, or philosophy souls, or all sorts of things, and then they wrap themselves in obfuscating circles This is false; if you believe in a proposition, it entirely makes sense for you to argue for it. Whether those arguments are of quality is another matter, but the simple fact of arguing for a position you already hold does not make bad work. >When the philosophers start making testable predictions Philosophy isn't in the business of making testable predictions, just as logic or history isn't in the business of making testable predictions. Why must an argument make a testable prediction for you to take it seriously? Does this argument we're having now result in a testable prediction? If it doesn't, why did you reply? Or if it does, doesn't that show there's more to rational argumentation than testable predictions? You assume that philosophy is like religion. Not so. I'm moderately well read on metaethics and none of your statements ring true to me, except in the case of poorly argued or shoddy philosophy, which I'm more than happy to admit does exist.

NHQ 4y ago

laserlight 4y ago

Thanks for clarifying. I think the question is more about sentience than ML. So, a PhD in philosophy would suit better your initial claim.

stale2002 4y ago
No it would not. Philosophy people wrap themselves up in so many circular self justifying presuppositions that they can make up whatever arguments they want to justify almost anything. It is much better to listen to people who study other, more falsifiable claims, in the material world.
- laserlight 4y ago
  The commenter I previously replied to has a PhD in those “other” fields, yet I haven’t seen a falsifiable definition of sentience made by them. As a field of study, sentience has been a topic of philosophy more than ML. That’s why top-level comment’s claim of having a PhD in “this domain” is not apt. Comparative quality of studies in different domains is a different question.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    I did. Each one of these dimensions can be independently evaluated. > Sentience broadly (& naively) covers the ability to independent thinking, rationalize outcomes, understand fear/threat, understand where it is wrong (conscience), decide based on unseen information & understand what it doesn't know. > comment’s claim of having a PhD in “this domain” is not apt C'mon, thats being disingenuous. People spent years poring on these topics, although we looked at it from the prism of computing. Elsewhere, I have pointed out that mentioning this detail is not about credential hopping: People on HN call you out for no reason for having an opinion. It has happened so many times that I don't risk commenting if required. Telling this extra information is just communicating we spent enough time on it to give somewhat informed discussion.
    - laserlight 4y ago
      Can you describe how you test for independent thinking? What does independent mean anyways? A decision tree can rationalize its outcomes. Does it count towards sentience? Is there an academic source for this definition of sentience? > Telling this extra information is just communicating we spent enough time on it to give somewhat informed discussion. Doing so is appeal to authority. When there is a claim of authority, it's very natural for it to be questioned. And those questions are based on subjective perception of authority.
      - srvmshr 4y ago
        > Can you describe how you test for independent thinking? Lets take a simple case: If I give a set of toy blocks to an infant - they could take a variety of tasks unprompted : building new shape, categorizing them based on color, putting them back in shelf, calling out their shapes. If you gave the same setup without any further apriori information, what would you expect the ML model or a robotic device embodying a learning algorithm would do? Precisely nothing unless a task is designated. In the current advancement of ML, this task would lead nowhere. We aren't close to building the independent thinking capabilities of a toddler . If we define a purpose, it can match or exceed expectations. That is the purpose of embodied VQA direction in current research. > Doing so is appeal to authority. When there is a claim of authority, it's very natural for it to be questioned. You're welcome to question any claims. This is an incentive to me & makes me happy. It shows someone is willing to constructively discuss what I've learned. Its a win-win, as I see it. But I take mentioning the credential disclaimer as a mode of mental preservation. It doesn't feel nice sometimes to explain others with utmost sincerity to be called a "garden variety fraud" for no rhyme or reason whatsoever (It happened right in this HN post somewhere)
        jameshart 4y ago
        > If you gave the same setup without any further apriori information, what would you expect the ML model or a robotic device embodying a learning algorithm would do? Precisely nothing unless a task is designated. Google deepdream liked to draw dogs. But also, we don't really run most of these ML models in a way that gives them an opportunity to form their own thoughts. A typical GPT-3 run consists of instantiating the model, forcing it to experience a particular input, reading its 'reaction' off a bunch of output neurons, then euthanizing it. If you did the same sort of thing with a human mind - waking it from a coma, blasting a blipvert of information into the visual cortex, then read off the motor neuron states, before pulling the plug on it again, you also wouldn't likely see much sign of 'independent thinking'.
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  This is an uncharitable view of philosophy without much evidence to show for it, especially when it comes to the philosophy of consciousness and philosophy of computing. Not to mention, falsifiability being taken as the criterion for knowledge was itself (mathematics and logical axioms are not 'falsifiable') a claim produced by a philosopher, and one which some commentators name as circular in itself. You're using a particular philosophy to discount philosophy of science on the whole, which is ironic.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > This is an uncharitable view of philosophy without much evidence to show for it Oh it has a lot of evidence. Just talk to any philosopher ever on any "meta" topic. Whether that be meta ethics, or meta epistemology, or meta whatever. They start with a conclusion that they want, such as dual-ism, or philosophy souls, or all sorts of things, and then they wrap themselves in obfuscating circles finding a justification than can't be tested in any way outside their own circular pre-suppositions that have no connection to the real world. > to discount philosophy of science on the whole When the philosophers start making testable predictions, that I can measure, as opposed to making stuff up in their own self referential assumptions, I will start taking them seriously.
    - claudiawerner 4y ago
      >They start with a conclusion that they want, such as dual-ism, or philosophy souls, or all sorts of things, and then they wrap themselves in obfuscating circles This is false; if you believe in a proposition, it entirely makes sense for you to argue for it. Whether those arguments are of quality is another matter, but the simple fact of arguing for a position you already hold does not make bad work. >When the philosophers start making testable predictions Philosophy isn't in the business of making testable predictions, just as logic or history isn't in the business of making testable predictions. Why must an argument make a testable prediction for you to take it seriously? Does this argument we're having now result in a testable prediction? If it doesn't, why did you reply? Or if it does, doesn't that show there's more to rational argumentation than testable predictions? You assume that philosophy is like religion. Not so. I'm moderately well read on metaethics and none of your statements ring true to me, except in the case of poorly argued or shoddy philosophy, which I'm more than happy to admit does exist.