3 ms·
Somehow just hacking together code to create something is considered publishable these days. The code works but it really is just pasted together stuff from the
by kristopolous 3y ago
Somehow just hacking together code to create something is considered publishable these days. The code works but it really is just pasted together stuff from the last few weeks of research.
- pro9 3y agoThe parameters and algorithms can be inferred from the code. Perhaps what’s unnecessary is tradition to wrap physical reality in human language semantics. The complexity is in the hardware. Programming has only ever been templating desired machine state. Programmers fell into a religious like state of seeing their more ornate efforts as essential to making a purpose built counting machine count.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- godelski 3y agoI don't think I have a problem with this tbh. Though this specifically looks more engineering and product oriented. What I do have a problem with is comparing papers across vastly different TRLs and comparing works done with 100 GPU years of compute to works with 1 GPU year (or less). Just completely different class of works and comparing is void of context, you know? The reason I don't have a problem is I see papers as how we researchers communicate with other researchers. But I feel that's not how everyone sees them and there's the aspect that this is how we're judged so incentives get misaligned with actual goal. Idk if the reward hacking is ironic or makes sense because our job is to optimize. But don't let anyone try to convince you that reward (or any cost function) is enough.