Ya... those are not great places to start with him... as far as philosophy of science essays in conjectures and criticisms and objective knowledge are really great and much more mature than the logic for the reasons you mentioned. Plus he develops some of the logical tools like content theory and verisimilitude in really cool ways.
Attribution is important but it's impossible to know all the literature that is out there and even when you've tried your best to seek out prior arts there is always a possibility that you've missed something or not understood the connection with something previously read. Heck even when something is similar you may not cite it since it's so old the relevance is no longer there for a working research paper.
I've always thought that Schmidhuber was toxically uncharitable - what is the point of accusing and blaming? If someone has a similar idea to mine I'd celebrate them, seek to collaborate and encourage. Wouldn't that mean your research program is getting advanced for free! Heck you should thank them for doing your work for you.
>Attribution is important but it's impossible to know all the literature that is out there and even when you've tried your best to seek out prior arts there is always a possibility that you've missed something or not understood the connection with something previously read.
It's not like Schmidhuber's papers are obscure.
>I've always thought that Schmidhuber was toxically uncharitable - what is the point of accusing and blaming
You're engaging in toxic victim-shaming. What, you expect him to just bend over and accept people stealing his ideas without giving him credit? Fundamentally the researchers who stole from him were engaging in unethical behaviour and shouldn't be allowed to get away with that without consequence.
So, ideas can now be stolen after all? I thought the HN consensus was that ideas can't be owned, but implementations can be. Or is it somehow different when we're looking at science?
Yes, it's very different for two reasons: 1) many ideas in science are highly non trivial compared to all sorts of crap that gets patented and 2) as scientists all we usually care about is getting some credit for our ideas. We want them to be known and used by everyone though.
Quite a huge contrast to companies that want their ideas for their own so only they can profit from them.
This was not the attitude of top guys in mathematics when I was at university.
Instead, one guy, who won a bunch of major scientific prizes in mathematics was of the view that people when they get scooped by people publishing in 'obscure' languages or non-English journals, were still scooped and that they can just shut up about proving things. Another guy of similar caliber was happy to read and figure out the ideas of papers in Russian and French maths journals, when it was relevant to his work, even though he couldn't read Russian.
Meanwhile, I've heard people speak of Schmidhuber's stuff as obscure because some stuff was in German, which is of course much easier than Russian for English speakers.
I wonder what software would be good for a logbook like this... I just use google docs for these kinds of things. Sure wandb and jupyter notebooks are good but they are not so good for notes and ideas and documentation
Sometimes the generic solution is just the best. No one requires special training on Google Docs and it just comes with handy features like version control and live updates.
Personally I use notion for this. Not dedicated software, but the extra options in formatting/structuring and linking can make a document like this a lot more readible.
I am all for independent discovery but the author should know in the language modeling community we have known this for years [1]. The authors of DALLE are well aware of it. We have many concerted efforts to try to solve for it. Heck even have whole conferences (semeval, *sem) dedicated to a host of known issues beyond negation (try adding quantification (every/some), or quantity (1,2,3, one,few,many) to the prompts) that we just know both theoretically and empirically dont work with our current embeddings (see [2] for a great overview sorry is paywalled).
Hey there - OP here. I haven't used spyder I'll have it check it out.
The primary use case is: I am a researcher in nlp where speed of prototyping is key. I work in an environment where research fragments are primarily jupyter notebooks. So needing to diff notebooks is typically reviewing my own changes when modifying my and others research sketches. Since its helpful to see how code changes.
What really resonates with me is what others have said which is I need to run cells that take 2-6 hours to compute so recomputing cells is annoying... I dont love notebooks for their messy state which cause obvious problems that are very annoying.. and I am not an advocate for notebooks for production for this reason but the flexibility of computing stuff and having that persist and doing downstream prototyping makes notebooks amazing! Markdown and latex in there is also really helpful.
The secondary use case is PRs but... typically reviewing others research code isnt at the granular level of notebook riffs across a few commits so it deosnt come up often.
In 10+ years of startup experience on the science and engineering side.
Sales fixes everything and is the hardest thing.
If sales can execute then there is no problem. It seems obvious but it's really not and people make the business about the mission and product - that stuff is secondary seriously secondary.
As a founder and early employee - you need to know if you can execute on sales or not and make it clear to both yourself and your coworkers.
Sales isnt something you can learn to do my biggest lesson is i cant do it no matter how hard I tried. If your employees / boss / cofounder are not closing sales you seriously need to get someone who can as your companies top priority.
Closing means money in the bank and nothing else. Paper is meaningless.
A contradictory learning is the best startups I've been at are ones where folks are ideologically fanatical with mission.
Strongly disagree. There is a consistent overlap between strong technical folks and skills/personalities that make it more difficult to learn to sell, but you can absolutely learn it.
Spot on. As a techie learning sale for my side project, I will never be the best at sales in the same way someone out of a bootcamp doesn't match the skillset of a Bjarne Stroustrup or a Rich Hickey but quite often you don't have to be the best at something for it make the difference between 0 and something that grows.
