I have, obviously, considered this. My conclusion is not that it is a good or bad idea, but that no-one will pay for it. It is the most extraordinarily hard sell you can imagine to funding bodies. The barriers / resistance are extreme.https://twitter.com/talyarkoni/status/1082006674070794240 …
-
Show this thread
-
🏴James Heathers 🏴 Retweeted Tal Yarkoni
It isn't expensive, at least, not comparatively. Here's perennially awful
@talyarkoni on that.https://twitter.com/talyarkoni/status/1082007860337360896?s=19 …🏴James Heathers 🏴 added,
Tal Yarkoni @talyarkoniReplying to @chrisgorgo @russpoldrack and 16 othersthe irony is that funding such a thing would cost a tiny fraction of what we all currently pay publishers for essentially no value. I think the fact that we *don't* already have such institutions everywhere kind of gives away where our values really lie3 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
But it's very far outside the reckoning of what so many people think is possible or appropriate. There's some kind of imagination gap. And it's massive.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jamesheathers @Meaningness
Seems like a way to disrupt the academic publishing industry. VC will fund it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @jamesheathers @Meaningness
That's for the startup to figure out. There's probably some clever ways to monetize having the attention of top academics. Just make it a recruiting platform on the backend
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @garybasin @jamesheathers
Clueful SV billionaires are looking for effective ways to use their money for good, and some are seriously thinking about trying to help fix science. Not sure what if anything will come of that, but funding this sort of new institution on a non-profit basis is imagineable.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Strongly second
@Meaningness on this point. There's a small handful of philanthropic orgs that are really excited about this kind of work. Lot of serious difficulties to sort out for the idea to look promising though.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Chris_PK_Smith @Meaningness and
E.g., It's easier and more motivating for researchers to search for errors in research they disagree with. Deciding what work is important to look into requires taking contentious positions. Hard to be effective w/o being partisan. Doesn't feel like open science if partisan.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
About three years ago I seriously considered pitching an anti-AI lab to do the missing control experiments in then-overhyped work. (Having played a major role in ending 80s symbolic AI, I have opinions, and a track record!)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Chris_PK_Smith and
If funders are throwing billions at AI research, they might want to spend a few millions on getting alternative views, just in case they are missing important caveats
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.