5 ms·

Also why emphasis that G&M are women? This sounds like creating an unnecessary protectional bias for them.

causi 4y ago
That's how you get attention in modern times. Marginalized groups are inherently heroic and non-marginalized groups are inherently villainous.
xbar 4y ago
I was immediately thrown into the weeds on that, too. ieee.org's editors are not doing a service to their members by making a chip design argument about AI a gender issue.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  In 2023 all issues are gender issues. The tangents people, even here at HN, take viz-a-viz these topics, are often mind-boggling. And HN generally has less bot protection than places like reddit, too.
rubylark 4y ago
The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that Chatterjee's motives and subsequent termination (which is not elaborated on) was related to gender discrimination. Otherwise I can't see what relevance anyone's genders has on the issue at hand.
- rockdoe 4y ago
  It's explained in the Wired article that is linked that this was indeed the cause. The independent reproduction that the IEEE article talks about also tested the method from the leaked paper from Chatterjee and concluded that his method indeed beats CT in almost all cases at a fraction of the computational cost. The response from G&M to the independent reproduction emphasizes their method was used for production hardware at Google, was in a peer reviewed paper, and that their GitHub repo had a lot of forks and stars (I'm not making this up). Near the end it then raises several technical objections.
  - warbaker 4y ago
    It doesn't look like they didn't train CT to convergence, so idk why anyone would care about those results. What is even the point of benchmarking against a learning based method of you don't let it finish learning? Quality of output matters way more than compute cost.
    - warbaker 3y ago
      EDIT (parity error): "didn't train" -> "trained"
mncharity 4y ago
> why Some background is EE professional and academic culture has, for more than a half century been ... less than fine with having women colleagues. Lots of ugly. Decades of improvement too, reflecting a whole lot of years of work from lots of people and leadership. But... CS changed faster. So an IEEE pub is pointing out that an IEEE-affiliated conference reportedly had... an excursion from professionalism baseline.

That's how you get attention in modern times. Marginalized groups are inherently heroic and non-marginalized groups are inherently villainous.

xbar 4y ago

I was immediately thrown into the weeds on that, too. ieee.org's editors are not doing a service to their members by making a chip design argument about AI a gender issue.

red-iron-pine 4y ago
In 2023 all issues are gender issues. The tangents people, even here at HN, take viz-a-viz these topics, are often mind-boggling. And HN generally has less bot protection than places like reddit, too.

rubylark 4y ago

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that Chatterjee's motives and subsequent termination (which is not elaborated on) was related to gender discrimination. Otherwise I can't see what relevance anyone's genders has on the issue at hand.

rockdoe 4y ago
It's explained in the Wired article that is linked that this was indeed the cause. The independent reproduction that the IEEE article talks about also tested the method from the leaked paper from Chatterjee and concluded that his method indeed beats CT in almost all cases at a fraction of the computational cost. The response from G&M to the independent reproduction emphasizes their method was used for production hardware at Google, was in a peer reviewed paper, and that their GitHub repo had a lot of forks and stars (I'm not making this up). Near the end it then raises several technical objections.
- warbaker 4y ago
  It doesn't look like they didn't train CT to convergence, so idk why anyone would care about those results. What is even the point of benchmarking against a learning based method of you don't let it finish learning? Quality of output matters way more than compute cost.
  - warbaker 3y ago
    EDIT (parity error): "didn't train" -> "trained"

mncharity 4y ago

> why Some background is EE professional and academic culture has, for more than a half century been ... less than fine with having women colleagues. Lots of ugly. Decades of improvement too, reflecting a whole lot of years of work from lots of people and leadership. But... CS changed faster. So an IEEE pub is pointing out that an IEEE-affiliated conference reportedly had... an excursion from professionalism baseline.