Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
In modern time, I have never heard of someone disqualifying menstruating women from celebrating. Though they are not expected to fast or pray during that time. My wife missed the first and last week this month -__-
Yes the team which literally created transformer and almost all the important open research including Bert, T5, imagen, RLHF, ViT don't have the ability to execute on AI /s. Tell me one innovation OpenAI bought into the field. They are good at execution but i havent seen anything novel coming out of them.
It's not a matter of skill as much as objective. And DeepMind would still be starting at zero if they decide to pivot to products.
- This does not seem unexpected. Google is panicked about losing the AI race and pushing resources into DeepMind is a logical step to mitigating those fears.
- Google has currently given ~300M to Anthropic and has a partnership with them. I assume Google continues to see potential in both avenues and won't neglect one AI team for the other. I'm guessing that DeepMind will be their primary focus because of the numerous, real-world applications already at play.
- It's tough for me to compare Google DeepMind to OpenAI GPT4. They seem to be very different approaches. Yet, they both have support for language and imagery. So, perhaps they aren't that different afterall?
- Still waiting to hear more from Google on how they plan to leverage their novel PaLM architecture. The API for it was released a month ago, but, to my awareness, has yet to take the world by storm. (Q: Bard isn't powered by PaLM, right?)
Overall, I am not convinced this will be massively beneficial. I don't trust Google's ability to execute at scale in this area. I trust DeepMind's team and I trust Google's research teams, but Google's ability to execute and take products to market has been quite weak thus far. My gut says this action will hamstring DeepMind in bureaucracy.
How did they drop the ball so hard? OpenAI has been around for less than a decade and as a smaller team with less resources was able to make a better product.
Most women I know appreciate the "perks" of being a woman, but none of them are under any delusion about it. They would be insulted if they lost on equal footing, and were rewarded for it anyway. I've never met anyone who was happy knowing someone let them win.
If you want to make an argument that men and women are never on equal footing, I could understand that but I'm not even sure what you are proposing instead.
The reason is because of historical oppression and entrenched systems of oppression still in place today. In that context, meritocracy only serves to reinforce the status quo.
I'm sure NASA can come very close to a true meritocracy - but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc. There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.
So you're making the same proposal. You want to hire a woman because she's a woman. This is a massive disservice to female empowerment.
> There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.
This is an absurd line of thinking. If two people truly are equally qualified, some immutable trait like race, sex, etc. should not be the determining factor. If you are ok with someone being hired for a job because they are a native american or a woman, then you should also be ok with someone choosing to only hire white men and asian men. Both of these scenarios are racist/sexist.