AIsore

4 ms·

1.
by AIsore 2y ago
There is a lot to unpack. But let's start with your first point. If the acquisition of DeepMind was just a talent acquisition, why continue to let them publish? Your second point: how did you get the impression that this market is &quo
2.
by AIsore 2y ago
My experience - many are far off and most of the time published tables of different papers are hard to compare. If you make the assertion here of these results to be flawed, I would like to see more substance (code, reproduction,...). And f
3.
by AIsore 2y ago
Are you saying this is obvious because people have published the exact same benchmarks which are 100% comparable in journals? If so where are they? I have seen quite a few published benchmarks that could not quite be reproduced, tbh. So, ag
4.
by AIsore 2y ago
If you are asking that question, I guess you must have wondered about this for years, right, in fact nearly a decade? I mean why would Google have bought DeepMind with them publishing in peer reviewed journals for years after? Same for Meta
5.
by AIsore 2y ago
I am certainly not going to defend peer review and its inherent flaws. I am also not sure "capitalists" or the market is always as efficient as one might hope or think. But that aside, to my point above, if capitalists were to opt
6.
by AIsore 2y ago
These experiments seem pretty large already though, no? How are you so sure they messed up benchmarking? Is the code out already?
7.
by AIsore 2y ago
Nope, they should not. It is academia after all. How would you even do that in, say, pure mathematics? Concretely, I would love to know what the business plan/economic consideration of Gower's 1998 proof of Szemeredi's theore