Machine learning has a tradition of open access. These signatories have pledged not to submit or review for Nature/Springer's new (closed access) ML journal. Include Yoshua Bengio, @yclecun, Michael Jordan, and many others: https://openaccess.engineering.oregonstate.edu/ https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/990325895729594368 …
-
Of course I am be biased, but
@NatMachIntell is intended to celebrate the fields of ML and robotics, and be a venue for discussing ethics and societal implications. We will see if it works, but it's editors deserve a salary to live on.
Also a bad argument. If what they're doing is negative for the field of machine learning - which, clearly, a lot of first-rate machine learning people think is true - then no, they don't particularly deserve a salary to live on.
-
-
(To be clear, I mean: if doing this thing is bad for the field - which apparently many top people believe is true - then they should go do something else. Obviously I don't mean that they shouldn't have salaries for anything!)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Again, I ultimately agree. But as far as I am concerned the time to make this judgement is in a few years time, not now.
-
No. If something is clearly a bad idea, then you don't wait for it to establish itself. You stop it now. I agree: bringing closed access to ML - a historically very open field - is a very bad idea, and now is exactly the right time to stop it.
- 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.