2 ms·

I mean, there is no data support in the claim that this pattern is essentially universal in AI research. Citing a few instances doesn’t prove the point. I’m ope

I mean, there is no data support in the claim that this pattern is essentially universal in AI research. Citing a few instances doesn’t prove the point. I’m open to the idea that AI research is generally more closed than other areas of research, but there is no quantitative analysis of how open AI research is, or how open other areas of research are. pick any other area of research, and I will happily find you some footnotes citations that support exactly these claims.

latexr 4y ago
> Citing a few instances doesn’t prove the point. I haven’t read every linked reference, but for a relatively short article there are more than a few. It's certainly more annotated than the average article I find on HN. Shouldn’t the quality of the sources matter most? And if what matters is the number, how many would be enough in this case? What would prove the point? > or how open other areas of research are. Other areas of research are irrelevant to the point. Even if other areas suck, that doesn’t excuse this one sucking too. > pick any other area of research, and I will happily find you some footnotes citations that support exactly these claims. Even if that is true, it doesn’t make the argument automatically false or irrelevant for any particular case. First you objected the author had no data or references. Now you’re saying that for any area of research you can find references to prove the point they’re making. Which is it? Is the problem that they didn’t provide enough sources, or that the sources aren’t believable?
- brookst 4y ago
  I’m sorry I was apparently hard to follow. I meant, the author cites anecdotes (“here’s a paper that’s not open!”) rather than data (“of the 500 most-cited papers in the AI space, 82% were not open, compared to only 36% of papers in anthropology being non-open”). And, I meant if you pick any other discipline that produces thousands of academic papers a year, I will be able to find 20 that don’t count as open. Anger often makes it hard to understand things.

latexr 4y ago

> Citing a few instances doesn’t prove the point. I haven’t read every linked reference, but for a relatively short article there are more than a few. It's certainly more annotated than the average article I find on HN. Shouldn’t the quality of the sources matter most? And if what matters is the number, how many would be enough in this case? What would prove the point? > or how open other areas of research are. Other areas of research are irrelevant to the point. Even if other areas suck, that doesn’t excuse this one sucking too. > pick any other area of research, and I will happily find you some footnotes citations that support exactly these claims. Even if that is true, it doesn’t make the argument automatically false or irrelevant for any particular case. First you objected the author had no data or references. Now you’re saying that for any area of research you can find references to prove the point they’re making. Which is it? Is the problem that they didn’t provide enough sources, or that the sources aren’t believable?

brookst 4y ago
I’m sorry I was apparently hard to follow. I meant, the author cites anecdotes (“here’s a paper that’s not open!”) rather than data (“of the 500 most-cited papers in the AI space, 82% were not open, compared to only 36% of papers in anthropology being non-open”). And, I meant if you pick any other discipline that produces thousands of academic papers a year, I will be able to find 20 that don’t count as open. Anger often makes it hard to understand things.