4 ms·

Worked in the space of AI QSAR/QSPR. Parent comment is correct in all respects. Science journalism is abysmal and hyperbolic, and that's why you see people tear

by timr 3y ago

Worked in the space of AI QSAR/QSPR. Parent comment is correct in all respects. Science journalism is abysmal and hyperbolic, and that's why you see people tearing into headlines like this. I don't know "euronews.next", but...let's just say that it doesn't inspire a great sense of journalistic integrity? For greater context, in the drug discovery world, "explainability" of QSAR/QSPR has been a longstanding goal. It's (rightly) not considered sufficient to have "black box" models that make predictions -- it's too expensive and risky to carry drug candidates into the lab based on the output of an algorithm, so subject-matter experts want to know why the algorithms are making the predictions that they make.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Science journalism is abysmal and hyperbolic Do you see the irony? What better describes social media? Personally, I see plenty of good, valuable, useful science journalism; it's got plenty of flaws, like any human endeavor - including social media comments. But attacking journalism is normalized, and thus people know they can do it without being questioned and get some social media likes from it. It would be interesting to see the same responses turned on individual social media comments - what flaws could we find? :) > For greater context, in the drug discovery world, "explainability" of QSAR/QSPR has been a longstanding goal. It's (rightly) not considered sufficient to have "black box" models that make predictions -- it's too expensive and risky to carry drug candidates into the lab based on the output of an algorithm, so subject-matter experts want to know why the algorithms are making the predictions that they make. Ironically, that's what the OP is about; that was the point of their research.
- timr 3y ago
  > Do you see the irony? What better describes social media? Social media is not one thing. You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. These aren't youtube video comments. > Ironically, that's what the OP is about; that was the point of their research. Yes, I know. That's why I wrote that. The research is about a relatively obscure technical problem. The headline made it sound like a revolutionary breakthrough in antibiotic development.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Social media is not one thing. Fair enough, but science journalism is not just one thing. > You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. That appears on every HN discussion of anything. It's not a signal of wrongness or rightness, any more than the color of the banner at the top - if it's orange, the OP must be obviously wrong!
    - hedora 3y ago
      It turns out there’s usually a group of HN commenters that specialize in whatever the topic is and are more qualified to discuss the technical contributions than the person that paraphrased a university press release.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Hmmm ... that is not my experience of it. My experience is that the actual experts' comments are half-way down the page, and in fields I do know about, most of the comments range from amateurish to BS. The omnipresent take-down comments are disputed by the experts, usually. Many of them follow the same formulaic 'take-down' patterns that reflect amateurism and ignorance trying to look smart, such as railing against sample sizes, etc. Also, your comment is a baseless claim - like the strawperson journalists you rail against - that HN commenters are more informed than the authors. I expect that very few HN commenters are as informed.

by timr 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

> Science journalism is abysmal and hyperbolic Do you see the irony? What better describes social media? Personally, I see plenty of good, valuable, useful science journalism; it's got plenty of flaws, like any human endeavor - including social media comments. But attacking journalism is normalized, and thus people know they can do it without being questioned and get some social media likes from it. It would be interesting to see the same responses turned on individual social media comments - what flaws could we find? :) > For greater context, in the drug discovery world, "explainability" of QSAR/QSPR has been a longstanding goal. It's (rightly) not considered sufficient to have "black box" models that make predictions -- it's too expensive and risky to carry drug candidates into the lab based on the output of an algorithm, so subject-matter experts want to know why the algorithms are making the predictions that they make. Ironically, that's what the OP is about; that was the point of their research.

timr 3y ago
> Do you see the irony? What better describes social media? Social media is not one thing. You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. These aren't youtube video comments. > Ironically, that's what the OP is about; that was the point of their research. Yes, I know. That's why I wrote that. The research is about a relatively obscure technical problem. The headline made it sound like a revolutionary breakthrough in antibiotic development.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Social media is not one thing. Fair enough, but science journalism is not just one thing. > You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. That appears on every HN discussion of anything. It's not a signal of wrongness or rightness, any more than the color of the banner at the top - if it's orange, the OP must be obviously wrong!
  - hedora 3y ago
    It turns out there’s usually a group of HN commenters that specialize in whatever the topic is and are more qualified to discuss the technical contributions than the person that paraphrased a university press release.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Hmmm ... that is not my experience of it. My experience is that the actual experts' comments are half-way down the page, and in fields I do know about, most of the comments range from amateurish to BS. The omnipresent take-down comments are disputed by the experts, usually. Many of them follow the same formulaic 'take-down' patterns that reflect amateurism and ignorance trying to look smart, such as railing against sample sizes, etc. Also, your comment is a baseless claim - like the strawperson journalists you rail against - that HN commenters are more informed than the authors. I expect that very few HN commenters are as informed.