3 ms·
The article this is responding to is some of the worst anti-science, anti-intellectual FUD I've seen in a while, with laughably false conceits like (paraphrased
by 12_throw_away 2y ago
The article this is responding to is some of the worst anti-science, anti-intellectual FUD I've seen in a while, with laughably false conceits like (paraphrased) "physics is too complicated, no one understands it" and thus "fundamental research doesn't matter".
Worse, the author of the original FUD is a professor of EE at Berkeley [1] with a focus in ML. It almost goes without saying, but EE and ML would not exist without the benefit a lot of fundamental physics research over the years on things that, according to him, "no one understands".
[1] https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~brecht/ https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~brecht/
- xeonmc 2y ago> ...is too complicated, no one understands it. Quoth the AI researcher.
- KolenCh 2y agoHaving been in his lectures in the past, he is the kind of person who teach you to question what you are told/taught. You should know he basically does the same thing to the field of ML (as this does to HEP). You know, when I first read this thread and the 3 posts involved, I find the original post Ben wrote arrogant and hard to swallow. But once I searched who he is, and recognized him, knowing his character I immediately “get his point”. While not an expert in the fields, I have both graduate level educations in HEP and ML. My point is that my conclusion is unlikely due to the lack of understanding of these fields, but more because of my understanding of who he is… Admittedly, he should not assume people read it as he intended how people would perceive. It took a lot of contextualizations, including the expectation from the title he explained in the later posts, to really take his posts seriously.