I am not surprised at cluelessness of young #DeepLearning researchers given their leader is a dogmatic bully. Bayesian methods will be increasingly important as safety-critical applications like #SelfDriving and #healthcare deploy #AI. @andrewgwils has a great threadhttps://twitter.com/andrewgwils/status/1210354001041969152 …
-
-
Replying to @AnimaAnandkumar @andrewgwils
I work closely with
@carlesgelada and he is one of the most open-minded, least dogma-driven researchers I know. We have been thinking hard about safety, and it's for exactly that reason that we are critical of Bayesian NNs. 1/32 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Calling an entire area useless is the opposite of open minded outlook and very definition of dogma. Provocation can start interesting discussions but it's wrong way to have a discourse.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
So you objected over the tone of my tweet and decided to respond by personally calling me clueless and accusing me of following a dogmatic bully? That makes sense. Also, for the record, I didn't say anything was useless. In fact I explained the uses I saw for BNNs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am convinced that the nature of social media causes enmity even when there is none to begin with. Short tweets makes it hard to have nuanced arguments. Unfortunately this has become medium of choice for scientific discourse. How do we fix this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hard problem but a good rule is to avoid turning technical arguments into personal conflicts. We can engage with the opinions we disagree without attacking the intelligence of the person who wrote them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And that would start with not labeling scientific discussions as controversial opinion. That signals an attempt to provocate and attack.
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.