4 ms·
> Mozilla.ai is not a serious organization. It seems to be just another “AI” clown car. If this is true, then I’m a court jester, because none of my projects s
by sillysaurusx 2y ago
> Mozilla.ai is not a serious organization. It seems to be just another “AI” clown car.
If this is true, then I’m a court jester, because none of my projects started as serious work by a serious organization. And ML wasn’t lame until everyone started taking it so seriously.
The key with ML is to have fun. Even the most serious researcher has this motivation, even if they won’t admit it. If you could somehow scan their brain and look, you’d see that all the layers of seriousness are built around the core drive to have fun. Winning a dota 2 tournament was serious work, but I’ll wager any sum of money they picked dota because it seemed like a fun challenge.
If the author is looking for a serious AI organization, they should start one. Otherwise they’re not really qualified to say whether the work is bad. I have no opinion on Mozilla’s project here, but at a glance it looks well-presented with an interesting hypothesis. All of my work started with those same objectives, and it’s mistaken to discourage it.
The more people doing ML, the better. It’s not up to us to say what someone should or shouldn’t work on. It’s their own damn decision, and people can decide for themselves whether the work is worth supporting. Personally, I think summarizing a corporation’s knowledge is one of the more interesting unsolved problems, and this seems like a step towards it. Any step towards an interesting objective is de facto good.
Bias has become such an overrated concern. Yes, it matters. No, it’s not the number one most important problem to solve. I say this as someone raising a daughter. The key is to make interesting things while giving some thought ahead of time on how to make it more inclusive. Then pay close attention when you discover that some group of users doesn’t like it, and why. Then think of ways to fix it, and decide whether the cost is low enough.
There is always a cost. Choosing to focus on bias means that you’re not focusing on building new things. It’s a cost I try not to shy away from. But the author seems to feel that it’s the single most important priority, rather than, say, getting a useful summary of 16,ooo words. I think I’ll agree to disagree.
- sillysaurusx 2y ago(Obviously, if your model has massive consequences (e.g. deciding whether to deny coverage, or grant a loan) then you should spend proportionally more time thinking of whether your model is covering all of the blind spots that you naturally have. But the vast majority of models don’t matter that much. And that’s an important philosophy to preserve. Imagine if someone felt that every line of code you ever write needs to be perfect on the first try. Imagine trying to get anything done.)
- lurking_swe 2y agoIf a mozilla employee is just having fun, and clearly has no clue what they’re doing (they are new to this), why not SAY THAT at the beginning of the blog post? Is transparency too much to ask? Ruins a company’s credibility…
- sillysaurusx 2y agoThe point is "just having fun" is the way you get to AGI, if it’s possible at all. All the obvious paths are explored, so only those who truly love the work for its own sake will pursue it. If you thought that any researcher has a clue what they’re doing, I’m afraid you’ve been mistaken. We have hypotheses and observations from past experiments, but no one has any idea whether something will work until they try it. So by discouraging them from trying, you’re decreasing the likelihood that any useful work will be done at all.
- seanhunter 2y agoYes exactly. A famous example that illustrates this perfectly is Richard Feynman's wobbling plate https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/75/3/240/1056339/Feynman-s-wobbling-plate?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/75/3/240/1056...