4 ms·

> I have no faith in the basement dwelling loner making significant contributions to AI. Why not? There's a strong history of individuals outside of academia m

by heurist 11y ago

> I have no faith in the basement dwelling loner making significant contributions to AI. Why not? There's a strong history of individuals outside of academia making large contributions to science.

astrocyte 11y ago
He probably doesn't consider it due to group think... Probably the biggest thing limiting lots of individuals from ushering in a new paradigm. Truthfully stated and functionally so, the biggest contributions/changes come from someone thinking outside of the accepted (limited) view: the basement dweller not following the herd.. Many could be horrible wrong but all it takes is one to be right. Meanwhile, in the box, no one sees beyond it or its limits.
- jjaredsimpson 11y ago
  This is a motivational poster, but it doesn't reflect reality. There are lots of people who go with the current and also against the current. The majority of people who go against the current of mainstream knowledge are quacks or misguided or simply not competent to make the discovery they want to make. The few who make novel contributions are not representative. People working in groups building on the success and knowledge of others make the vast majority of meaningful contributions in all fields.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Well, if the basement dweller can build software that performs unprecedentedly well on a known task with a known benchmark data-set, and explain how he did it, and he's read at least some previous academic literature... Sure. But most basement dwellers don't go to that much effort.
- heurist 11y ago
  Most, not all... The real problem is vetting the "how" and dissemination of information. A non-academic might have no idea how to present their findings through journals or conferences, even if their ideas are well-formed and valid. I imagine there would also be strong push-back from academics averse to outside contributors (at least for big changes). What if known benchmarks are insufficient? How will the outsider convince the professionals? There's also a problem of access to literature... journals can be expensive if you aren't getting them for free at a university. There are a lot of free journals online nowadays but they don't always cover everything you might need. It's hard to tell a crank from a genius, but that doesn't mean there are no geniuses hidden away out there.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >I imagine there would also be strong push-back from academics averse to outside contributors (at least for big changes). No, not really. "We" academics get cliquey because of the intellectual prerequisites to our work, not because we're trying to form a closed conspiracy for domination of the academic world. If someone can demonstrate findings but has unusual institutional affiliations, we'll give them exactly our normal treatment (ie: skepticism in proportion to how thoroughly they're proving our hypotheses wrong, mixed with enthusiasm for having something interesting to talk about).

by heurist 11y ago

> I have no faith in the basement dwelling loner making significant contributions to AI. Why not? There's a strong history of individuals outside of academia making large contributions to science.

astrocyte 11y ago

He probably doesn't consider it due to group think... Probably the biggest thing limiting lots of individuals from ushering in a new paradigm. Truthfully stated and functionally so, the biggest contributions/changes come from someone thinking outside of the accepted (limited) view: the basement dweller not following the herd.. Many could be horrible wrong but all it takes is one to be right. Meanwhile, in the box, no one sees beyond it or its limits.

jjaredsimpson 11y ago
This is a motivational poster, but it doesn't reflect reality. There are lots of people who go with the current and also against the current. The majority of people who go against the current of mainstream knowledge are quacks or misguided or simply not competent to make the discovery they want to make. The few who make novel contributions are not representative. People working in groups building on the success and knowledge of others make the vast majority of meaningful contributions in all fields.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Well, if the basement dweller can build software that performs unprecedentedly well on a known task with a known benchmark data-set, and explain how he did it, and he's read at least some previous academic literature... Sure. But most basement dwellers don't go to that much effort.

heurist 11y ago
Most, not all... The real problem is vetting the "how" and dissemination of information. A non-academic might have no idea how to present their findings through journals or conferences, even if their ideas are well-formed and valid. I imagine there would also be strong push-back from academics averse to outside contributors (at least for big changes). What if known benchmarks are insufficient? How will the outsider convince the professionals? There's also a problem of access to literature... journals can be expensive if you aren't getting them for free at a university. There are a lot of free journals online nowadays but they don't always cover everything you might need. It's hard to tell a crank from a genius, but that doesn't mean there are no geniuses hidden away out there.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >I imagine there would also be strong push-back from academics averse to outside contributors (at least for big changes). No, not really. "We" academics get cliquey because of the intellectual prerequisites to our work, not because we're trying to form a closed conspiracy for domination of the academic world. If someone can demonstrate findings but has unusual institutional affiliations, we'll give them exactly our normal treatment (ie: skepticism in proportion to how thoroughly they're proving our hypotheses wrong, mixed with enthusiasm for having something interesting to talk about).