Disclaimer: This work is done by some of my colleagues.
As someone pointed out, there are 25 pages of text (not including bibliography of course), not 5.
Most publications are coming with multiple months delay before code release (if any), here you literally have a written soft deadline of 1 week. So maybe you can wait few days before posting such bad comment?
> I'm also not going to pay a subscription fee to every site I come across that might have a decently written article once in a while.
What if the site was consistenly putting decent articles? I think one of the argument is that you would see more of those decent articles if people were more enclined to follow a subscription model where the journal is accountable to its customers.
>"you would see more of those decent articles if people were more inclined to follow a subscription model where the journal is accountable to its customers."
I think this argument holds up. For example, publications like the Scientific American and The Scientist tend to be very high quality in terms of accuracy (usually with unobtrusive citations, if I recall correctly). It's too bad their subscriptions prices are so high; they were hundreds of dollars a year if I remember correctly, versus less than 50 dollars a year for other magazines.
Ii'm not sure about how financially successful they are, but I found myself struggling to justify such a subscription price, when the purpose was essentially edu-tainment. The publications that can more easily get people to pay more, in my view, ostensibly help people make more money or find career success, which is why industry publications like STAT for biotech/medicine (and more generally, publications like the WSJ/Bloomberg) tend to be more financially successful.
Well first off, this is an informal discussion. Secondly:
> It is ALL about click bait to drive digital advertising
(Emphasis my own.) Science reporting is still crap even when it isn't funded by advertising, so there's obviously more going on than the funding model making things shit. The BBC and CBC both have crappy science reporting too, as do university press departments. These counter-examples refute the claim which was stated too strongly (I do think advertising plays some role in it, but obviously not all.)
My experience seems to resonate with a good amount of ppl here. I graduated from a very average university and my grades were a roller-coaster, I tend to prefer learning in depth topics that I'm interested into rather than study for exam and that led me to difficult times. I went to a more prestigious university for exchange and to my surprise students were not better in in-depth understanding but even more exam-smart...
One thing I've ended thinking is that University is just not good for learning in-depth (at least my field of computer engineering) I'm way better at that on my own, what it was good at tho is helping me building a map of knowledge of concepts I was not aware of, I'm thankful I discovered ML in a class which then became my passion and career.
As someone who went to a mid-tier state university for computer engineering in undergrad, I kinda disagree. The classes were not going to push into great depth on the topics. But there was plenty of opportunity to push myself beyond the classes, like doing independent study or research with professors.
Or just to do what he did. Ian Goodfellow and probably all his team will have no problem finding another job in the condition they want. Apple don't have any monopole on AI jobs.
