(I don't understand how calling this out fixes this - it just drives economic benefit to a problematic article.)
-
-
Hmm, suppose enough prominent AI researchers all agreed to consistently call out such articles... you don't think that will create incentives for journalists to try something else? (The other economic issues notwithstanding -- I agree there are other issues at play.)
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Maybe. It could also be a disincentive to covering the area, as you (if you're starting out) have an unpredictable risk of public criticism. It feels odd to me as I'm sure there's a way to improve things that doesn't require public disapproval, which feels inherently adversarial
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jackclarkSF @yisongyue and
I think this is a really tricky area as loads of it sums to "people who have spent decades studying a subject want someone who has spent hours studying the subject to write with context of people who have spent decades studying the subject"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
That does seem to imply that universities should employ more outreach & communications personnel.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yisongyue @jackclarkSF and
Many universities are already bloated with administrators (thankfully not at caltech). Suggesting we add more bloat and spend even less on research and education is problematic
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AnimaAnandkumar @yisongyue and
I think outreach to journalists/public qualifies as 'education' (I have no idea how these things are bucketed internally)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jackclarkSF @AnimaAnandkumar and
Yeah I think agree. I think this is different from conventional University administration (at least until it becomes overly institutionalized).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yisongyue @jackclarkSF and
Public outreach and education is very different from PR and media. The incentives are different.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AnimaAnandkumar @jackclarkSF and
I was thinking something like "media outreach", e.g. articles that are written mostly in laymen's terms, and (in addition to discussing recent advances) provide a nice summary of surrounding context with links to related work. Not sure where to draw the line between that at PR.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Majority of distorted media articles around AI come from industry research. Companies are investing in big PR to enable this. Thankfully universities are mostly not participating in this AI distortion. I hope that doesn't change.
-
-
Replying to @AnimaAnandkumar @jackclarkSF and
Forcing a related works section goes a long way I think.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @AnimaAnandkumar @yisongyue and
I’ve come across so many papers from industry that have catchy names and big claims! It’s not good for science!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.