ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
4d ago
Ok, that is by far the more reasonable option, even if I find it less natural as a matter of language.
It is, of course, difficult to strictly evaluate the extent to which a third party is "increasing" in a sense of reliance/confidence/trust. That said, I would note that a couple days ago I referred to this recent blog post by Tao, where he presented some criteria that he says he uses to guide his usage. I don't necessarily agree with them all, but I do get the sense that he maintains a distrust of them, even while trying to get as much value out of them as possible. In the comments on that blog post, he re-endorses his comments on using "AI on the red team" from this paper, which also reads to me as having a sense of distrust and trying to describe ways of working with the thing that he has a sense of distrust in, while leveraging its strengths.
ControlsFreak
4d ago
I don't know about medical, but for engineering, the competitiveness level for professorships is so high that there is quite a lot of talent distributed pretty widely. If one looks around for, I don't know, top quantum researchers, you might be surprised how widely you'll find them. There's still a lot of garbage being published, sure, but that's more a product of the incentive structure demanding more more more in terms of publications. Moreover, while academia hasn't been entirely immune to the general homogenization effects that happened to much of the rest of society, there are still somewhat distinctive flavors that can be seen. For example, (being a bit reductive here), one could say that there's something of a "Berkeley way" of approaching learning problems that is more distinctive on the west coast. Obviously, some of their successes filter over to other folks, but they have sort of a different mindset (purely technically speaking, not about their weird political bubble).
More options
Context Copy link