3 ms·

Apologies for butting in. Programming language adjustments sound good on the surface but don’t really cut deep enough, as far as the problem domain is concerne

Apologies for butting in. Programming language adjustments sound good on the surface but don’t really cut deep enough, as far as the problem domain is concerned. This is both research and implementation of a military grade solution. Think about it this way: both the electrical engineering and the mathematics you are combining are (a) cutting edge in their respective fields (for the most part) and (b) cutting edge in their combination. Finding good ways of expressing that Geometric structure in a programming language feature or as a subroutine library is 10 years and many more applications (read: real world tests) down the road from where original poster’s work takes place for the government. And ipunchghosts seems to have encountered what other people in his position convey behind closed doors: The researchers are sacrificial pawns and even sacrificial chess queens. Your mileage may vary, of course. Edit: Typo

ipunchghosts 2y ago
I guess im wondering if other researchers in DoD are having the same sentiment as me. I find it hard to believe they arent but it's something that not talked about much because from my point of view, there arent many researchers with 20 YoE left in the DoD. If i am wrong, point me to them as i want to join their ranks!
meltyness 2y ago
Again, probably pretty naive take (and without regard to the amount of or quality of outcomes), but when looking at the way academic research occurs, thinkers are often exposed to failures and asked to explain them or expound upon the underlying philosophy -- rather than to participate in the full engineering cycle; that can take different forms such as hands-on development, but particularly in engineering, viewed with skepticism. I think there's even a take that you can tease the patent system as a way to profit from failing to explain ideas effectively. Edit: maybe the consideration then is what are the roles missing? if there's a way to improve off-the-shelf model performance faster than moore, what is it? scaling to teams that specify more specialized roles; simulation, model architecture / quantization specialist, systems-level, hardware-match specialist / minimization? some sort of way to compose, or perform operations on the content of models?

ipunchghosts 2y ago

I guess im wondering if other researchers in DoD are having the same sentiment as me. I find it hard to believe they arent but it's something that not talked about much because from my point of view, there arent many researchers with 20 YoE left in the DoD. If i am wrong, point me to them as i want to join their ranks!

meltyness 2y ago

Again, probably pretty naive take (and without regard to the amount of or quality of outcomes), but when looking at the way academic research occurs, thinkers are often exposed to failures and asked to explain them or expound upon the underlying philosophy -- rather than to participate in the full engineering cycle; that can take different forms such as hands-on development, but particularly in engineering, viewed with skepticism. I think there's even a take that you can tease the patent system as a way to profit from failing to explain ideas effectively. Edit: maybe the consideration then is what are the roles missing? if there's a way to improve off-the-shelf model performance faster than moore, what is it? scaling to teams that specify more specialized roles; simulation, model architecture / quantization specialist, systems-level, hardware-match specialist / minimization? some sort of way to compose, or perform operations on the content of models?