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.)
-
I think there could be something interesting here. I was thinking that we need “synthesizers” who are experts able to provide context but not invested in any piece of work.
In the earlier era, scientific articles in the media would have comments from outside experts. That has been mostly wiped out in current reporting of #AI No wonder the hype is out of control..
-
-
You still see this from the better pieces. One issue is that some researchers are afraid to say anything critical about Google or DM because it could jeopardize future funding—industry is not only an actor in AI research but taking an increasingly important role in AI funding.
-
Another example of
#AI#mediahype We reached out to authors to point out our previous work https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.05780 that was missed and they acknowledged it. In fact, our paper framed it as a negative result, the opposite of what@VentureBeat claims!https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/25/google-researchers-improve-reinforcement-learning-by-having-their-ai-play-pong/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.