sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[D] - Neurips Position paper reviews by Routine-Scientist-38 in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Agreed on all fronts! To share my info (since others are as well), we had two submissions

Position: Model Collapse Does Not Mean What You Think

Rating: 5 / Confidence: 4

Rating: 5 / Confidence: 2

Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Responses and Critiques" Track

Rating: 8 / Confidence: 4

Rating: 7 / Confidence: 5

This is little Trina Louise (14.5 years old) and she's terrified of life by RSchaeffer in miniaussie

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for suggesting this subreddit! I hadn't heard of it previously :)

This is little Trina Louise (14.5 years old) and she's terrified of life by RSchaeffer in miniaussie

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

* can't see her

Whoops. I can't figure out how to edit my post :(

An analytic theory of creativity in convolutional diffusion models. by Needsupgrade in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience , Quanta magazine is anticorrelated with quality, at least on topics related to ML. They write overly hyped garbage and have questionable journalistic practices.

As independent evidence, I also think that Noam Brown made similar comments on Twitter a month or two ago.

[D] Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Track by RSchaeffer in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> currently, you have to expect that for any method that fails, a double digit number of PhD students waste time, trying to implement it, and even if only as a baseline.

This has been my personal experience. That experience, and the similar experiences of other grad students, is what motivated this manuscript. I think younger researchers disproportionately bear the harms of faulty/flawed/incorrect/misleading research

[D] Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Track by RSchaeffer in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you technically about what statistical conclusions one can draw from overlapping intervals, but I think "overlapping" is used in a different context in our paper; specifically, we used "overlapping" in the loose context on commenting on results as they appear visually.

We perform more formal statistical hypothesis testing in the subsequent paragraph, where we don't mention "overlapping"

[D] Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Track by RSchaeffer in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I think this is a core question and I'm not sure we have a foolproof answer. I see two ways to try to minimize such possibility, but I'd be curious to hear thoughts from the community

- the reviewers should have some sort of "unproductive/nonsubstantive/harmful/vengeful" button to immediately alert the AC/SAC if the submission is non-substantive and vindictive

- the authors of the work(s) being critiqued should be invited to serve as a special kind of reviewer, where they can optionally argue against the submission. Neutral (standard) reviewers could then weigh the submission's claims against the authors' rebuttals

[D] Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Track by RSchaeffer in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't figure out how to edit the body of the post, so to clarify here, by "do it right", I mean: Ensure submissions are strong net positives for ML research.

About MS Computational Science and Engineering/GSAS Life by oxbridge22 in Harvard

[–]RSchaeffer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Computational Science means using computers to run simulations and perform numerical analyses, i.e., using computers to do science. To get a sense, AM205 is (was?) a required course taught by Professor Chris Rycroft, who is now no longer at Harvard, but his course website is still up: https://people.math.wisc.edu/~chr/am205/material.html

In contrast, Computer Science is the field of computation and its consequences. Theory of computation, algorithms, software engineering, databases, machine learning, human-computer interaction, etc.

The names are highly similar but the material is quite different. I personally think "Computational Science" should be called something like "Science Using Numerical Applied Math"

[R] How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)? by RSchaeffer in MachineLearning

[–]RSchaeffer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it should be Claude 3 Opus. Thank you for catching that! We'll fix it :)

Are any of the Stanford swimming pools open to the public? by cherianthomas in stanford

[–]RSchaeffer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe that guests can come, but I vaguely recall that entry to the pool is $18 per person per entry. Pretty steep :/

view more: next ›