3 ms·
I hate to be negative, but I found the announcement post suspiciously devoid of any acknowledgement of the huge work that has been done in this field over the l
by cromwellian 11y ago
I hate to be negative, but I found the announcement post suspiciously devoid of any acknowledgement of the huge work that has been done in this field over the last few years. Wolfram's post seems to be written in the tone as if he's suddenly discovered a way to do this, when it's old hat. No mention of the results and ILSVRC (Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge) contests held every year. Or ImageNet and all of the associated projects.
- seanp2k2 11y agoHere's a [biased] bit on Wolfram, the person: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/SkepticsOnWolfram.html http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/SkepticsOnWo... TL;DR [quote] Although it is clear that Wolfram is no crank, not someone skeptics would label a pseudoscientist, skeptics will notice that, despite his flawless credentials, staggering intelligence, and depth of knowledge, Wolfram possesses many attributes of a pseudoscientist: (1) he makes grandiose claims, (2) works in isolation, (3) did not go through the normal peer-review process, (4) published his own book, (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors, and (6) rejects a well-established theory of at least one famous scientist. [/quote]
- jgalt212 11y agoWhile not applicable for this post, I really like: > (5) does not adequately acknowledge his predecessors as a huge indicator of PR-driven news article rather than a news-driven news article.