6 ms·

While this is true, I think Microsoft Research is much more akin to Bell Labs than Google (though I'm biased). See e.g. this list of top CS papers [1]. [1] ht

by kvb 13y ago

While this is true, I think Microsoft Research is much more akin to Bell Labs than Google (though I'm biased). See e.g. this list of top CS papers [1]. [1] http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

ansible 13y ago
MS Research is all kinds of awesome in my book just for sponsoring a lot of the Haskell guys.
psbp 13y ago
Is Google's research: http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html inferior?
- kvb 13y ago
  In my opinion, yes, but others are free to disagree (and "inferior" is subjective). In addition to the kinds of applied research that Google also does (machine learning, etc.), MSR also does a lot of fundamental research much further afield, like that done by the biology group at MSR Cambridge [1], or the quantum computing work done in the quantum computing group and Station Q [2] (see also Scott Aaronson's relevant blog post [3]). [1] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/biology/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/biology/ [2] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/quarc/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/quarc/ [3] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1471 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1471
  - thezilch 13y ago
    Except Google does plenty of [1] biological [1] based [2] studies [3] too [4]. And, of course, quantum [5] computing [6] studies [7] too [8]. [0] http://ai.stanford.edu/~gal/Research/ActivityMotifs/ http://ai.stanford.edu/~gal/Research/ActivityMotifs/ [1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34936.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [2] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35765.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [3] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/14156.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [4] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/32875.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [5] http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36657.html http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36657.html [6] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35383.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [7] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35382.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [8] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/33477.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...
    - kvb 13y ago
      Don't get me wrong, Google does lots of great research across a variety of fields. And I'm neither a biologist nor a quantum physicist, so I can't claim to know exactly how important either MSR or Google's research is in those fields, but my distinct impression is that Microsoft is investing more and doing more in each of them (again, see the Aaronson post for the take of one person familiar with the state of quantum physics research). And not that it's especially important, but for the at least the first paper you cite it doesn't look like any of the research was actually done at Google.
      - thezilch 13y ago
        It's really strange to discuss putting weights of importance on topics you (and I) are tangibly quantify. I'm not even sure how anyone justifies claiming MS or Google research is _inferior_ to the other's. If we have that much insight into what is superior, then surely we've already won and know where to throw our bucks? Regardless, Google already does plenty of work in these fields. This year, they've expanded to partnerships with NASA, USRA, and D-Wave with a new AI Lab -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE.
- uniclaude 13y ago
  Well, if we are to trust the data provided on your parent's link, yes, Google's research is inferior. At least in terms of number of "best papers awards", which is of course only a metric.

by kvb 13y ago

ansible 13y ago

MS Research is all kinds of awesome in my book just for sponsoring a lot of the Haskell guys.

psbp 13y ago

Is Google's research: http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html inferior?

kvb 13y ago
In my opinion, yes, but others are free to disagree (and "inferior" is subjective). In addition to the kinds of applied research that Google also does (machine learning, etc.), MSR also does a lot of fundamental research much further afield, like that done by the biology group at MSR Cambridge [1], or the quantum computing work done in the quantum computing group and Station Q [2] (see also Scott Aaronson's relevant blog post [3]). [1] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/biology/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/biology/ [2] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/quarc/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/quarc/ [3] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1471 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1471
- thezilch 13y ago
  Except Google does plenty of [1] biological [1] based [2] studies [3] too [4]. And, of course, quantum [5] computing [6] studies [7] too [8]. [0] http://ai.stanford.edu/~gal/Research/ActivityMotifs/ http://ai.stanford.edu/~gal/Research/ActivityMotifs/ [1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34936.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [2] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35765.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [3] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/14156.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [4] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/32875.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [5] http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36657.html http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36657.html [6] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35383.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [7] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/35382.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... [8] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/33477.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...
  - kvb 13y ago
    Don't get me wrong, Google does lots of great research across a variety of fields. And I'm neither a biologist nor a quantum physicist, so I can't claim to know exactly how important either MSR or Google's research is in those fields, but my distinct impression is that Microsoft is investing more and doing more in each of them (again, see the Aaronson post for the take of one person familiar with the state of quantum physics research). And not that it's especially important, but for the at least the first paper you cite it doesn't look like any of the research was actually done at Google.
    - thezilch 13y ago
      It's really strange to discuss putting weights of importance on topics you (and I) are tangibly quantify. I'm not even sure how anyone justifies claiming MS or Google research is _inferior_ to the other's. If we have that much insight into what is superior, then surely we've already won and know where to throw our bucks? Regardless, Google already does plenty of work in these fields. This year, they've expanded to partnerships with NASA, USRA, and D-Wave with a new AI Lab -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE.
uniclaude 13y ago
Well, if we are to trust the data provided on your parent's link, yes, Google's research is inferior. At least in terms of number of "best papers awards", which is of course only a metric.