3 ms·

That applies to absolutely everyone. Convenient results are highlighted, inconvenient are either not mentioned or de-emphasized. You do have to be well read in

by ein0p 2y ago

That applies to absolutely everyone. Convenient results are highlighted, inconvenient are either not mentioned or de-emphasized. You do have to be well read in the field to see what the authors _aren't_ saying, that's one of the purposes of being well-read in the first place. That is also why 100% of science reporting is basically disinformation - journalists are not equipped with this level of nuanced understanding.

dekhn 2y ago
yes, but google has a long history of being egregious, with the additional detail that their work is often irreproducible for technical reasons (rather than being irreproducible for missing methods). For example, we published an excellent paper but nobody could reproduce it because at the time, nobody else had a million spare cores to run MD simulations of proteins.
- ein0p 2y ago
  It's hardly Google's problem that nobody else has a million cores, wouldn't you agree? Should they not publish the result at all if it's using more than a handful of cores so that anyone in academia can reproduce it? That'd be rather limiting.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    Well, a goal of most science is to be reproducible, and it couldn't be reproduced, merely for technical reasons (and so we shared as much data from the runs as possible so people could verify our results). This sort of thing comes up when CERN is the only place that can run an experiment and nobody can verify it.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      It is probably reproducible, if you have the requisite million cores. That isn't even difficult today - a million cores is about 100 GPUs.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > Google's problem that nobody else has a million cores, wouldn't you agree On the contrary - their advantage. They know it and they can make outlandish claims that no one will disprove
    - webmaven 2y ago
      For a while, anyway.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    Actually it IS google's problem. They don't publish through traditional academic venues unless it suits them (much like OpenAI/Anthropic, often snubbing places like NeurIPS due to not wanting to MIT open source their code/models which peer reviewers demand) and them demanding so many GPUs chokes supply for the rest of the field - a field which they rely on the free labor of to make complimentary technologies to their models.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      It doesn't choke anything. Anyone can go to GCP or other cloud providers and get as many GPUs as they need, within reason.
mmooss 2y ago
> That applies to absolutely everyone. Eating, drinking, sleeping apply to absolutely everyone. Deception varies greatly by person and situation. I know people who are painfully honest and people I don't trust on anything, and many in between.

by ein0p 2y ago

dekhn 2y ago

yes, but google has a long history of being egregious, with the additional detail that their work is often irreproducible for technical reasons (rather than being irreproducible for missing methods). For example, we published an excellent paper but nobody could reproduce it because at the time, nobody else had a million spare cores to run MD simulations of proteins.

ein0p 2y ago
It's hardly Google's problem that nobody else has a million cores, wouldn't you agree? Should they not publish the result at all if it's using more than a handful of cores so that anyone in academia can reproduce it? That'd be rather limiting.
- dekhn 2y ago
  Well, a goal of most science is to be reproducible, and it couldn't be reproduced, merely for technical reasons (and so we shared as much data from the runs as possible so people could verify our results). This sort of thing comes up when CERN is the only place that can run an experiment and nobody can verify it.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    It is probably reproducible, if you have the requisite million cores. That isn't even difficult today - a million cores is about 100 GPUs.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > Google's problem that nobody else has a million cores, wouldn't you agree On the contrary - their advantage. They know it and they can make outlandish claims that no one will disprove
  - webmaven 2y ago
    For a while, anyway.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Actually it IS google's problem. They don't publish through traditional academic venues unless it suits them (much like OpenAI/Anthropic, often snubbing places like NeurIPS due to not wanting to MIT open source their code/models which peer reviewers demand) and them demanding so many GPUs chokes supply for the rest of the field - a field which they rely on the free labor of to make complimentary technologies to their models.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    It doesn't choke anything. Anyone can go to GCP or other cloud providers and get as many GPUs as they need, within reason.

mmooss 2y ago

> That applies to absolutely everyone. Eating, drinking, sleeping apply to absolutely everyone. Deception varies greatly by person and situation. I know people who are painfully honest and people I don't trust on anything, and many in between.