Bloomberg may not be the best media outlet to be bringing this up, I agree.
That said @konquerror -- with whom I often have vehement disagreements in this forum -- makes some valid points regarding the nature of scientific inquiry and the manner in which knowledge progresses. Assuming we can agree that AI is still a scientifically naescent field of study.
An institution like Bell Labs (without which we cannot imagine the the world that we take for granted today) could not have become what it did without the ability for its scientists to do research and publish as though they could win Nobel prizes (which many of them did).
It is modern liberal science. You take your position as fact and then message the data to fit your perspective. If the data shoes to fit well throw out anything that might indicate that you are wrong.
This rant sounds like a conservative who's angry at how scientific fact tends to go against conservative attitudes...
You're very obviously not a scientist. Go talk to one and ask them about how scientific consensus occurs. People publish a bunch of opinions until it becomes scientifically accepted. That's all. And 25-50 years later when new evidence arises, all of that stuff will be seen as wrong. If you want to know the truth, science will never give it to you.
Example: Newton's laws of motion are wrong. Einstein came along and showed they are broken. 200 years of scientists were mistaken.
Evidence is not the same thing as common sense. You started by defending Bloomberg's use of "common sense." I told you that appealing to common sense is a logical fallacy. Now you talk about evidence? OK, what evidence was presented that Apple's AI efforts were suffering because of secrecy, apart from opinions presented in the article? Evidence is, hard data, measurable facts. It is not opinions. Bloomberg presents none of this, because how could they have any measurable metrics regarding the impact of secrecy on Apple's secret AI efforts? You could say: "but but but Apple published zero papers" as a measure of -- what? That they can't do AI research? Then you have to eliminate other factors such as Apple's desire for secrecy as not being the cause of this metric being zero.
But you're not making that argument. Or anything resembling a logical argument. You posted an ad hom "you're not a scientist go talk to a bunch of scientists" jab at me. Way to dodge addressing my criticisms of your post.
It seems to me that Apple's doing just fine taking advantage of public AI science, and not contributing anything to it themselves. Only loss is the scientific community. Why would Apple give out their research for companies like Google to include in their products? Eventually there will be patents awarded to Apple, and then the relevant journal articles will be published by Apple researchers (for Apple's benefit in public image), once Apple's ideas are protected against anyone else profiting from them.
In other secret news, Apple is also secretly working into going to Mars, but there is delay In the secret project do to gravitational issues, a well connected dead man Told the Wsj.
It seems to me that Apple's doing just fine taking advantage of public AI science, and not contributing anything to it themselves. Only loss is the scientific community. Why would Apple give out their research for companies like Google to include in their products? Eventually there will be patents awarded to Apple, and then the relevant journal articles will be published by Apple researchers (for Apple's benefit in public image), once Apple's ideas are protected against anyone else profiting from them.
Totally. I don't see why Apple should rush anything
Or Even hint at anything they are working on.
To please journalist? I see no point in that.
You're very obviously not a scientist. Go talk to one and ask them about how scientific consensus occurs. People publish a bunch of opinions until it becomes scientifically accepted. That's all. And 25-50 years later when new evidence arises, all of that stuff will be seen as wrong. If you want to know the truth, science will never give it to you.
Example: Newton's laws of motion are wrong. Einstein came along and showed they are broken. 200 years of scientists were mistaken.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle. You clearly don't understand science either.
Newton wasn't wrong within the scope of his ability to observe the universe. His observations and his math were VERY accurate to the level of detail humans were able to operate at for a very long time. You can use Newtonian observations/"laws" just fine, and accomplish a lot of incredible or basic science, up to a certain degree of accuracy, depending on the scale and speed of the objects in motion before you need something like general relativity or special relativity. Newtonian physics sent probes through the solar system and humans to the moon before we had computers more powerful than a 1980s Casio Databank watch.
Einstein provided refinements to the already working system of observations, not an entirely different system. Overwhelming consensus about scientific observations rarely throws out old consensus positions. Much more often a new theory replaces an old one because it works BETTER and answers more questions. Not because the old one is suddenly wrong.
Go watch the new Cosmos series on Netflix. It'll educate you about the scientific method.
It allowed them to dramatically leap ahead in the mobile cpu market, allowed the 5k iMac screen to dramatically leap ahead in computer displays, and only helps.
Secrecy ensures security and makes sure people aren't getting itchy waiting for a product that ends up delayed. It allows them to ship when the product is 100%.
It doesn't affect who they hire other than to give that new team member the assurance that his/her work will be given the special treatment it deserves. Who wouldn't want to work like that!? Sign me up now!
People don't get Apple. That's ok. Because they don't realize Apple is many steps ahead in the though process. Well... Maybe people do realize that. Because they sure appreciate Apple products.
It allowed them to dramatically leap ahead in the mobile cpu market, allowed the 5k iMac screen to dramatically leap ahead in computer displays, and only helps.
Secrecy ensures security and makes sure people aren't getting itchy waiting for a product that ends up delayed. It allows them to ship when the product is 100%.
It doesn't affect who they hire other than to give that new team member the assurance that his/her work will be given the special treatment it deserves. Who wouldn't want to work like that!? Sign me up now!
People don't get Apple. That's ok. Because they don't realize Appke is many steps ahead in the though process. Well... Maybe people do realize that. Because they sure appreciate Apple products.
You really think Apple got to where they are today because "people don't get them"? Yeah, people get Apple.
... why would well paid and treated employees care about Apple's secrecy requirements? All companies keep trade secrets. I suspect some people want to work for Apple for this reason. The mystic likely increases Apple's ability to hire great people.
The secrecy at Apple goes beyond trade secrets... Apple doesn't want competitors to know how far along they are with AI, nor the extent of interest Apple has. In the whole scheme of things, Asia is so far ahead of the USA on AI it isn't even funny.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle. You clearly don't understand science either.
Newton wasn't wrong within the scope of his ability to observe the universe. His observations and his math were VERY accurate to the level of detail humans were able to operate at for a very long time. You can use Newtonian observations/"laws" just fine, and accomplish a lot of incredible or basic science, up to a certain degree of accuracy, depending on the scale and speed of the objects in motion before you need something like general relativity or special relativity. Newtonian physics sent probes through the solar system and humans to the moon before we had computers more powerful than a 1980s Casio Databank watch.
Einstein provided refinements to the already working system of observations, not an entirely different system. Overwhelming consensus about scientific observations rarely throws out old consensus positions. Much more often a new theory replaces an old one because it works BETTER and answers more questions. Not because the old one is suddenly wrong.
Go watch the new Cosmos series on Netflix. It'll educate you about the scientific method.
Are you actually a scientist with published papers? Don't think so. Read Feynman's Cargo Cult Science. He's complaining because it's a real issue. Scientists think science is right even in cases where it obviously isn't. Also learn about Millikan's Oil Drop experiment finding the charge of the electron. He legitimately screwed it up big, but instead of people pointing out he was wrong, science slowly "drifted" to the right answer, because nobody wanted to admit how wrong everybody up to that point was. Hubble's Constant is another mistake. That number was way off for decades.
And you're wrong about relativity. The origin was not with classical mechanics or any sort of precision observation. The issue is with electromagnetics and Maxwell's equations: a magnetic field somehow can be converted into an electric field due to motion, as in a motor. Solenoids came in early 1800s, 25 years later Maxwell and Heaviside wrote the equations that expressed the symmetries between E and H, and 60 years later Einstein created special relativity to show that it's because its the same field. Mechanics was a result of that. (This is sophomore year electromagnetics if you're a physics major. It's in Cartoon Guide to Physics... you'll learn a lot more reading that than fluffy mass-market media)
So every time you make a cell phone call or a motor spins, that's special relativity.
Honesty, this is nothing new for Apple, it was not unusally for Apple employees to got to trade shows and conference registered as working for another company to fake companies. The reason this is an issue is the fact that most people in AI were stuck in some university for all these years since no one would hire them since they did not really know what to do with it. They are so use to taking other peoples ideas and running with them or sharing their ideas since they could not figure out what to do next. Now they being told not to share anymore and they do not know how to function.
There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start. To think that people in AI are "stuck" in some university because no one would hire them is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever heard. On the contrary, for those who are truly passionate about doing AI research, there is no better place to be than a university because that's where the real, cutting-edge research takes place. Many of the basic technologies that make things like the iPhone possible were invented by some of those very people who you think are "stuck" in a university because they couldn't go to industry. Where do you think Siri came from? It was a DARPA project undertaken in a joint effort involving dozens of computer scientists at the leading American universities. Do you really think people on that project were "stuck" as a university professor because no company would hire them?
And you criticize them for "taking other people's ideas and running with them" or "sharing their ideas since they could not figure out what to do next." Where do you think the mouse came from? It came from the very practice that you are deriding. The free exchange of ideas is critical to driving the progress of research. Science will not progress with people curled up in a corner. Going to conferences and publishing papers is vital to professors getting their name known in the community. Those conferences help them get their next grant. It helps professors' graduate students get placed.
Those highly prized new graduate students don't realize it yet, but the publications don't make any practical difference in the business world. What they'll typically find at Google is that their research is meaningless in the context of the company's future and profitability. Working like a student inside a company like Google gets old fast, despite the pay.
Those highly prized new graduate students don't realize it yet, but the publications don't make any practical difference in the business world. What they'll typically find at Google is that their research is meaningless in the context of the company's future and profitability. Working like a student inside a company like Google gets old fast, despite the pay.
Congratulations! You win the Stupidest Post of the Day prize!
Those highly prized new graduate students don't realize it yet, but the publications don't make any practical difference in the business world. What they'll typically find at Google is that their research is meaningless in the context of the company's future and profitability. Working like a student inside a company like Google gets old fast, despite the pay.
Exactly. Best graduate students go to academia and research labs. Most research money and freedom there. Next tier go to industrial R&D departments. Less money, less freedom. Lowest tier work outside pure R&D in the "business world". As you say, just another programmer where the company doesn't care about their research. Apple is stuck with the bottom because they can't provide the conditions of the first two.
You're very obviously not a scientist. Go talk to one and ask them about how scientific consensus occurs. People publish a bunch of opinions until it becomes scientifically accepted. That's all. And 25-50 years later when new evidence arises, all of that stuff will be seen as wrong. If you want to know the truth, science will never give it to you.
Example: Newton's laws of motion are wrong. Einstein came along and showed they are broken. 200 years of scientists were mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Evidence is not the same thing as common sense. You started by defending Bloomberg's use of "common sense." I told you that appealing to common sense is a logical fallacy. Now you talk about evidence? OK, what evidence was presented that Apple's AI efforts were suffering because of secrecy, apart from opinions presented in the article? Evidence is, hard data, measurable facts. It is not opinions. Bloomberg presents none of this, because how could they have any measurable metrics regarding the impact of secrecy on Apple's secret AI efforts? You could say: "but but but Apple published zero papers" as a measure of -- what? That they can't do AI research? Then you have to eliminate other factors such as Apple's desire for secrecy as not being the cause of this metric being zero.
But you're not making that argument. Or anything resembling a logical argument. You posted an ad hom "you're not a scientist go talk to a bunch of scientists" jab at me. Way to dodge addressing my criticisms of your post.
@konqerror, I really want to hear your rebuttal to this. Do you still stick to the "it's obvious" angle, or do you think Bloomberg actually posted evidence that @Suddenly Newton missed?
It is pretty easy to ignore a post when you don't have a genuine response on the Internet. I thought you were better than that.
Comments
That said @konquerror -- with whom I often have vehement disagreements in this forum -- makes some valid points regarding the nature of scientific inquiry and the manner in which knowledge progresses. Assuming we can agree that AI is still a scientifically naescent field of study.
An institution like Bell Labs (without which we cannot imagine the the world that we take for granted today) could not have become what it did without the ability for its scientists to do research and publish as though they could win Nobel prizes (which many of them did).
Correct. My post relies on understanding the difference between fact and "common sense." I demand facts. And so do scientists.
The Bloomberg article depends solely on "common sense," something that I regard as an editorial, not news.
You may want to step back from trying to use the logical fallacy of appealing to common sense. I assure you, it won't work on me.
http://scienceornot.net/2014/02/06/the-appeal-to-common-sense-garbage-in-the-guise-of-gumption/
There are two kinds of people, those who can extrapolate from missing data.
This rant sounds like a conservative who's angry at how scientific fact tends to go against conservative attitudes...
Evidence is not the same thing as common sense. You started by defending Bloomberg's use of "common sense." I told you that appealing to common sense is a logical fallacy. Now you talk about evidence? OK, what evidence was presented that Apple's AI efforts were suffering because of secrecy, apart from opinions presented in the article? Evidence is, hard data, measurable facts. It is not opinions. Bloomberg presents none of this, because how could they have any measurable metrics regarding the impact of secrecy on Apple's secret AI efforts? You could say: "but but but Apple published zero papers" as a measure of -- what? That they can't do AI research? Then you have to eliminate other factors such as Apple's desire for secrecy as not being the cause of this metric being zero.
But you're not making that argument. Or anything resembling a logical argument. You posted an ad hom "you're not a scientist go talk to a bunch of scientists" jab at me. Way to dodge addressing my criticisms of your post.
In the secret project do to gravitational issues, a well connected dead man
Told the Wsj.
Totally. I don't see why Apple should rush anything
Or Even hint at anything they are working on.
To please journalist? I see no point in that.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle. You clearly don't understand science either.
Newton wasn't wrong within the scope of his ability to observe the universe. His observations and his math were VERY accurate to the level of detail humans were able to operate at for a very long time. You can use Newtonian observations/"laws" just fine, and accomplish a lot of incredible or basic science, up to a certain degree of accuracy, depending on the scale and speed of the objects in motion before you need something like general relativity or special relativity. Newtonian physics sent probes through the solar system and humans to the moon before we had computers more powerful than a 1980s Casio Databank watch.
Einstein provided refinements to the already working system of observations, not an entirely different system. Overwhelming consensus about scientific observations rarely throws out old consensus positions. Much more often a new theory replaces an old one because it works BETTER and answers more questions. Not because the old one is suddenly wrong.
Go watch the new Cosmos series on Netflix. It'll educate you about the scientific method.
Apples secrecy only hurts the competition.
It allowed them to dramatically leap ahead in the mobile cpu market, allowed the 5k iMac screen to dramatically leap ahead in computer displays, and only helps.
Secrecy ensures security and makes sure people aren't getting itchy waiting for a product that ends up delayed. It allows them to ship when the product is 100%.
It doesn't affect who they hire other than to give that new team member the assurance that his/her work will be given the special treatment it deserves. Who wouldn't want to work like that!? Sign me up now!
People don't get Apple. That's ok. Because they don't realize Apple is many steps ahead in the though process. Well... Maybe people do realize that. Because they sure appreciate Apple products.
The secrecy at Apple goes beyond trade secrets... Apple doesn't want competitors to know how far along they are with AI, nor the extent of interest Apple has. In the whole scheme of things, Asia is so far ahead of the USA on AI it isn't even funny.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle. You clearly don't understand science either.
Newton wasn't wrong within the scope of his ability to observe the universe. His observations and his math were VERY accurate to the level of detail humans were able to operate at for a very long time. You can use Newtonian observations/"laws" just fine, and accomplish a lot of incredible or basic science, up to a certain degree of accuracy, depending on the scale and speed of the objects in motion before you need something like general relativity or special relativity. Newtonian physics sent probes through the solar system and humans to the moon before we had computers more powerful than a 1980s Casio Databank watch.
Einstein provided refinements to the already working system of observations, not an entirely different system. Overwhelming consensus about scientific observations rarely throws out old consensus positions. Much more often a new theory replaces an old one because it works BETTER and answers more questions. Not because the old one is suddenly wrong.
Go watch the new Cosmos series on Netflix. It'll educate you about the scientific method.
Are you actually a scientist with published papers? Don't think so. Read Feynman's Cargo Cult Science. He's complaining because it's a real issue. Scientists think science is right even in cases where it obviously isn't. Also learn about Millikan's Oil Drop experiment finding the charge of the electron. He legitimately screwed it up big, but instead of people pointing out he was wrong, science slowly "drifted" to the right answer, because nobody wanted to admit how wrong everybody up to that point was. Hubble's Constant is another mistake. That number was way off for decades.
And you're wrong about relativity. The origin was not with classical mechanics or any sort of precision observation. The issue is with electromagnetics and Maxwell's equations: a magnetic field somehow can be converted into an electric field due to motion, as in a motor. Solenoids came in early 1800s, 25 years later Maxwell and Heaviside wrote the equations that expressed the symmetries between E and H, and 60 years later Einstein created special relativity to show that it's because its the same field. Mechanics was a result of that. (This is sophomore year electromagnetics if you're a physics major. It's in Cartoon Guide to Physics... you'll learn a lot more reading that than fluffy mass-market media)
So every time you make a cell phone call or a motor spins, that's special relativity.
Honesty, this is nothing new for Apple, it was not unusally for Apple employees to got to trade shows and conference registered as working for another company to fake companies. The reason this is an issue is the fact that most people in AI were stuck in some university for all these years since no one would hire them since they did not really know what to do with it. They are so use to taking other peoples ideas and running with them or sharing their ideas since they could not figure out what to do next. Now they being told not to share anymore and they do not know how to function.
There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start. To think that people in AI are "stuck" in some university because no one would hire them is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever heard. On the contrary, for those who are truly passionate about doing AI research, there is no better place to be than a university because that's where the real, cutting-edge research takes place. Many of the basic technologies that make things like the iPhone possible were invented by some of those very people who you think are "stuck" in a university because they couldn't go to industry. Where do you think Siri came from? It was a DARPA project undertaken in a joint effort involving dozens of computer scientists at the leading American universities. Do you really think people on that project were "stuck" as a university professor because no company would hire them?
And you criticize them for "taking other people's ideas and running with them" or "sharing their ideas since they could not figure out what to do next." Where do you think the mouse came from? It came from the very practice that you are deriding. The free exchange of ideas is critical to driving the progress of research. Science will not progress with people curled up in a corner. Going to conferences and publishing papers is vital to professors getting their name known in the community. Those conferences help them get their next grant. It helps professors' graduate students get placed.
Those highly prized new graduate students don't realize it yet, but the publications don't make any practical difference in the business world. What they'll typically find at Google is that their research is meaningless in the context of the company's future and profitability. Working like a student inside a company like Google gets old fast, despite the pay.
Congratulations! You win the Stupidest Post of the Day prize!
Those highly prized new graduate students don't realize it yet, but the publications don't make any practical difference in the business world. What they'll typically find at Google is that their research is meaningless in the context of the company's future and profitability. Working like a student inside a company like Google gets old fast, despite the pay.
Exactly. Best graduate students go to academia and research labs. Most research money and freedom there. Next tier go to industrial R&D departments. Less money, less freedom. Lowest tier work outside pure R&D in the "business world". As you say, just another programmer where the company doesn't care about their research. Apple is stuck with the bottom because they can't provide the conditions of the first two.
You really think Apple got to where they are today because "people don't get them"? Yeah, people get Apple.
I rarely see that on media, or almost all comment sections.
Where exactly you see "people who get Apple"?
You're very obviously not a scientist. Go talk to one and ask them about how scientific consensus occurs. People publish a bunch of opinions until it becomes scientifically accepted. That's all. And 25-50 years later when new evidence arises, all of that stuff will be seen as wrong. If you want to know the truth, science will never give it to you.
Example: Newton's laws of motion are wrong. Einstein came along and showed they are broken. 200 years of scientists were mistaken.
Evidence is not the same thing as common sense. You started by defending Bloomberg's use of "common sense." I told you that appealing to common sense is a logical fallacy. Now you talk about evidence? OK, what evidence was presented that Apple's AI efforts were suffering because of secrecy, apart from opinions presented in the article? Evidence is, hard data, measurable facts. It is not opinions. Bloomberg presents none of this, because how could they have any measurable metrics regarding the impact of secrecy on Apple's secret AI efforts? You could say: "but but but Apple published zero papers" as a measure of -- what? That they can't do AI research? Then you have to eliminate other factors such as Apple's desire for secrecy as not being the cause of this metric being zero.
But you're not making that argument. Or anything resembling a logical argument. You posted an ad hom "you're not a scientist go talk to a bunch of scientists" jab at me. Way to dodge addressing my criticisms of your post.
@konqerror, I really want to hear your rebuttal to this. Do you still stick to the "it's obvious" angle, or do you think Bloomberg actually posted evidence that @Suddenly Newton missed?
It is pretty easy to ignore a post when you don't have a genuine response on the Internet. I thought you were better than that.