Exactly. In particular, when I train a model, I have a defined process for training, and I can flip the switch between "learning" and "not learning" to define exactly when the model adjusts its weights as a result of inputs. Humans can't do that with their brains. Thus, for humans, learning can't be decoupled from viewing, but it absolutely can be for AI.
I think, even though they are very different games, Disco Elysium has a lot of the same feel as Planescape: Torment. A lot of the same introspection of human nature, philosophy, moral judgment, and wry humour. If you like one, I think you'll like the other.
This has been an ongoing situation since around 2010. The field has been undergoing a huge shift in terms of re-evaluating research practices and past findings. It genuinely has nothing to do with national politics.
Also, the author is Canadian. So there's that, too.
>This has been an ongoing situation since around 2010.
Exactly. Yet the time to declare your change of heart is somehow now :)
>Also, the author is Canadian. So there's that, too.
Search for his grants brings grants from US, he studied and did PhD in US and still affiliated with NYU, and the major and most valuable part of his network of academia connections is US, his private foundation in USA, etc. If he isn't in-line with the prevalent winds in US, he will be reduced to nothing, just a professor in some Uni, not a renown researcher with his own Wikipedia page, grants and conferences in US, etc.
Yes, man, for 20+ years you are peddling some politically favored theory, supposedly doing experimental studies (by 2013 already getting at least $3.75M dollars in grants - https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/09/apf-grant ), and you have no idea that your theory is total BS until suddenly somebody else failed to reproduce yours and/or similar studies, and that is exactly when political climate is changing 180. It isn't a science, it is an ideology department serving whatever political regime is in power at any given moment.
As someone who went through grad studies in the field, and who has met Dr. Inzlicht in person before, I have to say I deeply appreciate his perspective. He has consistently been humble when facing the issues in the field, in ways that call even his own previous research (following the typical practices of the day) into question. The field as a whole has been undergoing a reckoning, but Mickey has been one of the people who has encouraged his fellow researchers not just to wag their fingers at others, but also to look inward and reflect on their own research practices. He has done so by showing humility and acknowledging where his research has fallen short, and that indicates to me a great deal of integrity.
It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible. I once worked as a research assistant on a project related to stereotype threat, and I recall the study going through several iterations because it all needed to be just so -- we were testing stereotypes related to women and math, but the effect was expected to be strongest for women who were actually good at math, so it had to be a test that would be difficult enough to challenge them, but not so challenging that we would end up with a floor effect where no one succeeds. In hindsight, it's so easy to see the rationale of "oh, well we didn't find an effect because the test wasn't hard enough, so let's throw it out and try again" being a tool for p-hacking, file drawer effects, etc. But at the time...it seemed completely normal. Because it was.
I'm no longer in the field, but it is genuinely heartening that the field is heading toward more rigour, more attempts to correct the statistical and methodological mistakes, rather than digging in one's heels and prioritizing theory over evidence. But it's a long road, especially when trying to go back and validate past findings in the literature.
>It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible.
While I'm sure it is an honest statement, this sentiment is itself concerning. Science is ideally done at a remove - you cannot let yourself want any particular outcome. Desire for an outcome is the beginning of the path to academic dishonesty. The self-restraint required to accept an unwanted answer is perhaps THE most important selection criteria for minting new academics, apart from basic competency. (Acadmeia also has a special, and difficult, responsibility to resist broader cultural trends that seep into a field demanding certain outcomes.)
> While I'm sure it is an honest statement, this sentiment is itself concerning. Science is ideally done at a remove - you cannot let yourself want any particular outcome.
This basically never happens. I worked in academia for many years, and in psychology for some of that, and I have never met a disinterested scientist.
Like, you need to pick your topics, and the research designs within that etc, and people don't pick things that they don't care about.
This is why (particularly in social/medical/people sciences) blinding is incredibly important to produce better results.
> The self-restraint required to accept an unwanted answer is perhaps THE most important selection criteria for minting new academics,
I agree with this, but the trouble is that this is not what is currently selected for.
I once replicated (four times!) a finding seriously contrary to accepted wisdom and I basically couldn't get it published honestly. I was told to pretend that I had looked for this effect on purpose, and provide some theory around why it could be true. I think that was the point where I realised academia wasn't for me.
Now, the same thing happens in the private sector, but ironically enough, it's much less common.
You were told by whom? An editor? A reviewer? To how many journals did you submit this research? Did you work your way from top tier journals downward? In general, almost all empirical research will find a home. I find your story less than believable without some additional context, disgruntledphd2.
I was a PhD student, I was told this by both my supervisors and much of my department.
I attempted to submit it to about 3-4 journals and never even got it sent to review.
Ultimately I left academia both for reasons research and financial, so I stopped.
I'm a little confused as to why you are doubting an anonymous comment on the Internet deep in an old thread on a mostly meaningless message board, but I guess that's life.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting a particular outcome. It wasn’t wrong that people were excited about the prospect of a room temp superconductor a few months back because people knew that if it were true good things were possible. Insisting that you can’t be excited by one potential outcome from a study means that you’ll only study things that don’t have the potential to help
There is a useful distinction between "wanting" and "attachment", but one usually turns into the other. Your mention of room temp superconductors is ironic since they have all been precisely attachment-driven frauds that start with wanting.
These are the exceptions imo. Most of it is funding-driven (or sometimes wanting-status-driven) than pure wanting-driven. Most researchers do not even care that much about their actual field and would change the field to do what they really want to do, albeit funding keeps there where they are.
Talking about what is considered "alive" is an interesting exercise, and shows just how fuzzy those boundaries can be sometimes. But I really don't see how this has any practical impact on how we study mitochondria.
> If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?
Whenever anyone uses the "harnessing [its] full potential" cliché, my bullshit alarm starts buzzing. I don't think this article is bullshit, but...we can "harness" as much "potential" as mitochondria have whether we consider them alive or not.
Not to mention the article says it "was also instrumental in changing how people are treated during psychological research" -- Uhh, yeah, because the lack of ethical safeguards in the study became a major issue and we realized we needed to correct that. You don't get credit for ethics reforms by being the unethical person.
What is the measurement on the x-axis in the graph?? The text is talking about equations of 20 or 30 characters, but the graph goes up to...6. Six what?? Characters? Terms? If it's characters, why do we only get to see the performance from 1-6, when apparently 7% of equations had more than 20?
To me, there's no evidence in any of this that would indicate the creators are misinformed or being scammed. In reality, they know their primary source of revenue is coming from Youtube, and it is a frequent complaint, especially for content creators who do anything marginally political or controversial, that they are demonetized or hit with copyright strikes (even in clear cases of fair use) and have to deal with the faceless Google behemoth trying to reverse these automated decisions. The end result of all this is that their revenue stream is unstable, and they are reminded of it frequently.
To me, the fact that many of them clearly find Nebula a more suitable arrangement for them is still an indicator to me that, if I want to support the creators, Nebula is a better way to do that. Obviously, you can make your own decision on that, and sure, if you feel lied to, I can appreciate being upset about that. But maybe most of these content creators are less concerned with the ownership (they get 0% stake in Google, after all) and more concerned with the profit sharing arrangement. If so, I'm still happy to support them in that.
I never said they were scammed, but I was indeed misled by dishonest marketing, and frankly I think creators are also to blame for spouting lies about ownership.
I supported Nebula because I think a creator's co-op is a beautiful project. I was willing to compromise on the co-op idea when I thought it was a 50:50 ownership structure but this is nothing close to equitable in my mind.
I'll spend the money I save on Nebula on monthly donations to creators. I look forward to supporting a creators co-op if a promising one is ever made.
As someone who just finished reading her book City of Illusions, this is a fun coincidence. The first chapter of (her interpretation of) the Tao Te Ching features in the book, and the bit about "two things, one origin, but different in name" is a central aspect of the book.
City of Illusions is one of her earlier works, but I found it a great read, and definitely could see the throughline to The Left Hand of Darkness, which would be published a couple years later.
