Good thread/discussion between @juliagalef and @michael_nielsen on the value (if any) of occasionally thinking in irrational ways.https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/849868740204257280 …
-
2/ I think we agree on the desirability of maximizing (long-term, collective) utility, and agree, up to edge cases, on what that utility is
3/ But I'd frame our disagreement a little differently than Julia.
-
-
4/ In general, I believe our scientific institutions don't support diverse enough in-depth exploration.
-
5/ Instead, a few broad schools tend to form. A good example is AI research. Neural nets were very unfashionable for a long time.
-
6/ But still pursued by Geoff Hinton, now seen as a visionary.
-
6½/ Hinton seems to have largely suspended skepticism (per Julia's 3), in order to deeply explore an idea.
-
7/ I think we'd be better off with more Hintons.
-
8/ Actually, that's not quite right. It's easy after the fact to say "let's have more Geoff Hintons" - he's seen as right!
-
9/ What's harder is to say "let's support many people pursuing ideas that don't look as promising as w'ever currently appears most promising
-
10/ Of course, there's usually a good reason the fashionable idea is fashionable. It usually _is_ right.
-
11/ But there's no reason to think our grant allocation mechanisms allocate money in the right way.
- 1 more reply
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.