I can imagine a world where they hedged the outcome sufficiently to not have to retract. "methodologies based on those used here may prove beneficial based on preliminary findings, subject to further refinement" type comment.
I mean, without over-egging it you would not deploy peer review, based on the modern evidenced outcomes: the papers are demonstrably not better in volume, and have to be retracted, and peer-review has been massively destructive of career progression for academics because of Rei-ification. To me, it's analogous: the model is flawed? refine the model don't junk the principle.
I think at one remove I agree with comments which go to "this is evidence that rigor is good, and self-policing is good"
if money people say something is a dead duck, they probably have an upside in it but it's worth bearing in mind, making money by correctly predicting "its dead Jim" means .. it's dead Jim.
Contrariwise if people say something is "the ducks nuts", they probably have an upside in it but it's worth bearing in mind, making money by selling ducks nuts usually means you bought a handful of beans which are decidedly NOT magic.
One thing is for sure: a metric tonne of money is flowing into AI, and some of that money WILL turn out to have evaporated or burned in a giant potlach, and some of that money will continue to exist and will have made somebody ELSE fantastically rich.
My non-goldman-sachs prediction: most of the $1t of money poured into AI will be wasted in the bigger picture and very little of it will show any ROI but some fantastically wealthy people will exist because of this bubble.
Only yesterday there was an HN piece decrying the listed property relationship to WFH and the push to go back to the office.
I personally think that the HNW who are the c-suites have been asked by their Listed Property Trust managers to try and fix the vacancy rate problem because if this sector tanks, their component of investment in property tanks too.
I don't see this as "conspiracy" -it's pretty simple. If you invested in property in these locations the chances are it was a contra to occupy the investment and maximise it's value to you. Naming rights to a building isn't just a sign on the roof it's usually indicative of a major sublease or tenancy.
If you aren't using the tenancy, other parts of your investment management side would be saying "why are we paying this rent" and then the virtuous circle of "well.. our property people said we'd do better if we DID use it" .. comes up.
> But unless you have a way to interpret the high-frequency signal, it looks an awful lot like noise.
In other words, they're looking for their lost keys under the lamp-post because it's easier there. If there is a signal in the HF, it's not yet understood. This feels like "junk DNA" -which is I believe receiving more attention than the name suggests.
> they're looking for their lost keys under the lamp-post because it's easier there
This is a strange criticism. If you're looking for your keys in the dead of night, and there is a lamp post where they might be, you should start there.
The streelight effect criticises "only search[ing] for something where it is easiest to look" [1]. Not searching where it's easiest in all cases.
In this case, we know averaging destroys information. But we don't know to what significance. As the author says, "we now have the tools we need to find out if averaging is showing us something about the brain’s signals or is a misleading historical accident." That neither confirms nor damns the preceding research--it may be that averaging is perfectly fine, hides some of the truth that we can now uncover or is entirely misleading.
An indirect pointer to https://www.popsci.com/food-waste-fertilizer/ and the one thing it doesn't have is a before-and-after photo sequence. It does show the collection process and the peel piles. Thats a lot of peel and pulp.
Be aware that the opposite force, measuring developer productivity by lines of code removed, is (in my personal opinion) a spectacularly GOOD measure. It is not a totally symmetric world, and making things work with less, is actually net beneficial most of the time.
Scaling up shipbuilding in wartime demands skilled labour and construction facilities. To say nothing of the material inputs.
reply