3 ms·

Let's cut through your bullshit You said > none of her work seems particularly interested in technology Here is a very representative quote from her PhD thes

Let's cut through your bullshit You said > none of her work seems particularly interested in technology Here is a very representative quote from her PhD thesis which you clearly did not really look up > Augmenting Existing Adaptation Algorithms with At- tribute Loss > We can augment any existing adaptation algorithm with our attribute based losses to perform adaptation at the attribute as well as the class level. Here, we describe how we apply our method to [116]. To use our method with [116], we add the domain confusion and... It's clear you will talk any amount of dishonest nonsense to make your point

revelio 3y ago
The thread here started with the claim that "she has a Masters in Electrical Engineering, a PhD in Computer Vision, and has had a fantastic career". It's reasonable to expect given that description for her PhD to be actually in computer vision. You know, a new SOTA on some well known benchmark or something. Some new general technique useful to anyone who deploys computer vision. Even she doesn't claim that's the case, the dissertation title claims it to be visual computational sociology which would be a different field. Her findings are pure sociology, there's no outcome here which is about computer vision (beyond "hey CV seems to work"). The original point was she doesn't seem very interested in technology. I don't see how a PhD that is at least 50% sociology disproves this point, it clearly supports it. And that's before dealing with the general dishonesty that pervades woke universities; who knows if the thesis can even be taken at face value? A place like Stanford wouldn't hesitate to misrepresent things for equity purposes.