3 ms·
According to the article, it's a random AI researcher at Google, so fairly relevant.
by cwp 3y ago
According to the article, it's a random AI researcher at Google, so fairly relevant.
- somerandomdudes 3y agoGoogle has thousands of so called AI/ML "researchers". The author has ZERO publications in top AI/ML conferences.
- cwp 3y agoYou know who wrote this?
- somerandomdudes 3y agoyes, I do.
- cwp 3y agoWell, I can't argue with that. I'm just going by the intro paragraph in the article. If your argument is "I know this guy and I consider his opinion worthless" you might want to lead with that.
- somerandomdudes 3y agoIt is not worthless. But you have to evaluate the argument on its own, not act as if it from some authority on the topic because it is from some googler.
- cwp 3y agoOh, I see where you're coming from. Yes, quite right. I'm definitely not saying "Well, he must be right because he's a super smart Google researcher."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- somerandomdudes 3y agoPeople are appealing to some kind of "authority" regarding these opinion docs from random dudes working at Google where if they knew the dude's name rather than the fact that they work at Google they would not.
- cwp 3y agoYou don't think a Google AI researcher is in a good position to comment on how Google is affected by recent developments in AI? I mean, yeah, it's an opinion, but it's not just anyone's opinion.
- somerandomdudes 3y agoThis is really some random dude. If the dude posted it on his personal blog HN wouldn't pay any attention to it, but because it is a "leak" of an "internal Google document" somehow it becomes more valuable than it really is. The author is mid level software engineer without any publications in major AI conferences. So the appeal to authority here is really unfounded.