hunch_net hunch_net-2005 hunch_net-2005-76 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. Some of this is necessary to the process of research. For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. [sent-1, score-0.632]
2 Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. [sent-2, score-0.207]
3 Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. [sent-3, score-2.59]
4 This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. [sent-4, score-1.179]
5 Some of this is necessary to the process of research. [sent-5, score-0.172]
6 For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. [sent-6, score-0.542]
7 Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. [sent-7, score-0.582]
8 Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. [sent-8, score-0.461]
9 Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. [sent-9, score-0.383]
10 This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a great investment in defending “their” idea. [sent-10, score-0.795]
11 Since research is risky, “their” idea is often wrong (or at least in need of amendment). [sent-11, score-0.285]
12 A large penalty implies people are hesitant to introduce new ideas. [sent-12, score-0.512]
13 Both of these effects slow the progress of research. [sent-13, score-0.284]
14 How much, exactly, is unclear and very difficult to imagine measuring. [sent-14, score-0.142]
15 While it may be difficult to affect the larger community of research, you can and should take these considerations into account when choosing coauthors, advisors, and other people you work with. [sent-15, score-0.59]
16 The ability to say “oops, I was wrong”, have that be accepted without significant penalty, and move on is very valuable for the process of thinking. [sent-16, score-0.299]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('penalty', 0.327), ('excessive', 0.309), ('ideas', 0.303), ('condemnation', 0.265), ('risky', 0.235), ('pan', 0.218), ('overconfidence', 0.218), ('bad', 0.211), ('wrong', 0.156), ('smart', 0.155), ('effects', 0.149), ('research', 0.129), ('defending', 0.118), ('essays', 0.118), ('ill', 0.118), ('skill', 0.118), ('affect', 0.109), ('considerations', 0.109), ('necessary', 0.104), ('advisors', 0.103), ('investment', 0.103), ('oops', 0.103), ('introduce', 0.094), ('coauthors', 0.094), ('slashdot', 0.094), ('people', 0.091), ('motivate', 0.091), ('appeared', 0.088), ('paul', 0.086), ('neither', 0.086), ('business', 0.083), ('move', 0.081), ('valuable', 0.079), ('take', 0.078), ('written', 0.078), ('slow', 0.076), ('difficult', 0.075), ('exactly', 0.073), ('confidence', 0.071), ('accepted', 0.071), ('process', 0.068), ('unclear', 0.067), ('since', 0.067), ('viewpoint', 0.065), ('choosing', 0.065), ('accept', 0.064), ('highly', 0.064), ('account', 0.063), ('critical', 0.061), ('progress', 0.059)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 76 hunch net-2005-05-29-Bad ideas
Introduction: I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. Some of this is necessary to the process of research. For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a
2 0.11303008 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
Introduction: I want to try to describe what doing research means, especially from the point of view of an undergraduate. The shift from a class-taking mentality to a research mentality is very significant and not easy. Problem Posing Posing the right problem is often as important as solving them. Many people can get by in research by solving problems others have posed, but that’s not sufficient for really inspiring research. For learning in particular, there is a strong feeling that we just haven’t figured out which questions are the right ones to ask. You can see this, because the answers we have do not seem convincing. Gambling your life When you do research, you think very hard about new ways of solving problems, new problems, and new solutions. Many conversations are of the form “I wonder what would happen if…” These processes can be short (days or weeks) or years-long endeavours. The worst part is that you’ll only know if you were succesful at the end of the process (and some
3 0.10227876 344 hunch net-2009-02-22-Effective Research Funding
Introduction: With a worldwide recession on, my impression is that the carnage in research has not been as severe as might be feared, at least in the United States. I know of two notable negative impacts: It’s quite difficult to get a job this year, as many companies and universities simply aren’t hiring. This is particularly tough on graduating students. Perhaps 10% of IBM research was fired. In contrast, around the time of the dot com bust, ATnT Research and Lucent had one or several 50% size firings wiping out much of the remainder of Bell Labs , triggering a notable diaspora for the respected machine learning group there. As the recession progresses, we may easily see more firings as companies in particular reach a point where they can no longer support research. There are a couple positives to the recession as well. Both the implosion of Wall Street (which siphoned off smart people) and the general difficulty of getting a job coming out of an undergraduate education s
4 0.099772878 333 hunch net-2008-12-27-Adversarial Academia
Introduction: One viewpoint on academia is that it is inherently adversarial: there are finite research dollars, positions, and students to work with, implying a zero-sum game between different participants. This is not a viewpoint that I want to promote, as I consider it flawed. However, I know several people believe strongly in this viewpoint, and I have found it to have substantial explanatory power. For example: It explains why your paper was rejected based on poor logic. The reviewer wasn’t concerned with research quality, but rather with rejecting a competitor. It explains why professors rarely work together. The goal of a non-tenured professor (at least) is to get tenure, and a case for tenure comes from a portfolio of work that is undisputably yours. It explains why new research programs are not quickly adopted. Adopting a competitor’s program is impossible, if your career is based on the competitor being wrong. Different academic groups subscribe to the adversarial viewp
5 0.096711025 370 hunch net-2009-09-18-Necessary and Sufficient Research
Introduction: Researchers are typically confronted with big problems that they have no idea how to solve. In trying to come up with a solution, a natural approach is to decompose the big problem into a set of subproblems whose solution yields a solution to the larger problem. This approach can go wrong in several ways. Decomposition failure . The solution to the decomposition does not in fact yield a solution to the overall problem. Artificial hardness . The subproblems created are sufficient if solved to solve the overall problem, but they are harder than necessary. As you can see, computational complexity forms a relatively new (in research-history) razor by which to judge an approach sufficient but not necessary. In my experience, the artificial hardness problem is very common. Many researchers abdicate the responsibility of choosing a problem to work on to other people. This process starts very naturally as a graduate student, when an incoming student might have relatively l
6 0.092202887 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
7 0.089174211 151 hunch net-2006-01-25-1 year
8 0.086814545 51 hunch net-2005-04-01-The Producer-Consumer Model of Research
9 0.086186484 288 hunch net-2008-02-10-Complexity Illness
10 0.081337787 121 hunch net-2005-10-12-The unrealized potential of the research lab
11 0.077838063 38 hunch net-2005-03-09-Bad Reviewing
12 0.077791505 36 hunch net-2005-03-05-Funding Research
13 0.074002557 202 hunch net-2006-08-10-Precision is not accuracy
14 0.072601587 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
15 0.071883768 378 hunch net-2009-11-15-The Other Online Learning
16 0.071138546 108 hunch net-2005-09-06-A link
17 0.06907329 96 hunch net-2005-07-21-Six Months
18 0.068768673 134 hunch net-2005-12-01-The Webscience Future
19 0.06817808 282 hunch net-2008-01-06-Research Political Issues
20 0.067156643 73 hunch net-2005-05-17-A Short Guide to PhD Graduate Study
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.144), (1, -0.033), (2, -0.015), (3, 0.118), (4, -0.092), (5, -0.015), (6, 0.041), (7, 0.042), (8, 0.019), (9, 0.055), (10, 0.025), (11, 0.004), (12, 0.002), (13, -0.014), (14, 0.03), (15, 0.021), (16, -0.003), (17, 0.031), (18, -0.01), (19, 0.009), (20, -0.028), (21, 0.031), (22, -0.046), (23, 0.017), (24, 0.004), (25, -0.065), (26, -0.036), (27, -0.041), (28, -0.079), (29, -0.031), (30, 0.051), (31, -0.023), (32, -0.081), (33, -0.018), (34, -0.024), (35, -0.048), (36, 0.002), (37, -0.006), (38, -0.064), (39, -0.043), (40, 0.053), (41, 0.085), (42, -0.015), (43, -0.026), (44, 0.014), (45, -0.039), (46, -0.013), (47, 0.06), (48, -0.051), (49, 0.033)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96232378 76 hunch net-2005-05-29-Bad ideas
Introduction: I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. Some of this is necessary to the process of research. For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a
2 0.72186244 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
Introduction: How do you create an optimal environment for research? Here are some essential ingredients that I see. Stability . University-based research is relatively good at this. On any particular day, researchers face choices in what they will work on. A very common tradeoff is between: easy small difficult big For researchers without stability, the ‘easy small’ option wins. This is often “ok”—a series of incremental improvements on the state of the art can add up to something very beneficial. However, it misses one of the big potentials of research: finding entirely new and better ways of doing things. Stability comes in many forms. The prototypical example is tenure at a university—a tenured professor is almost imposssible to fire which means that the professor has the freedom to consider far horizon activities. An iron-clad guarantee of a paycheck is not necessary—industrial research labs have succeeded well with research positions of indefinite duration. Atnt rese
3 0.71578979 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
Introduction: I want to try to describe what doing research means, especially from the point of view of an undergraduate. The shift from a class-taking mentality to a research mentality is very significant and not easy. Problem Posing Posing the right problem is often as important as solving them. Many people can get by in research by solving problems others have posed, but that’s not sufficient for really inspiring research. For learning in particular, there is a strong feeling that we just haven’t figured out which questions are the right ones to ask. You can see this, because the answers we have do not seem convincing. Gambling your life When you do research, you think very hard about new ways of solving problems, new problems, and new solutions. Many conversations are of the form “I wonder what would happen if…” These processes can be short (days or weeks) or years-long endeavours. The worst part is that you’ll only know if you were succesful at the end of the process (and some
4 0.71008462 121 hunch net-2005-10-12-The unrealized potential of the research lab
Introduction: I attended the IBM research 60th anniversary . IBM research is, by any reasonable account, the industrial research lab which has managed to bring the most value to it’s parent company over the long term. This can be seen by simply counting the survivors: IBM research is the only older research lab which has not gone through a period of massive firing. (Note that there are also new research labs .) Despite this impressive record, IBM research has failed, by far, to achieve it’s potential. Examples which came up in this meeting include: It took about a decade to produce DRAM after it was invented in the lab. (In fact, Intel produced it first.) Relational databases and SQL were invented and then languished. It was only under external competition that IBM released it’s own relational database. Why didn’t IBM grow an Oracle division ? An early lead in IP networking hardware did not result in IBM growing a Cisco division . Why not? And remember … IBM research is a s
5 0.69329226 344 hunch net-2009-02-22-Effective Research Funding
Introduction: With a worldwide recession on, my impression is that the carnage in research has not been as severe as might be feared, at least in the United States. I know of two notable negative impacts: It’s quite difficult to get a job this year, as many companies and universities simply aren’t hiring. This is particularly tough on graduating students. Perhaps 10% of IBM research was fired. In contrast, around the time of the dot com bust, ATnT Research and Lucent had one or several 50% size firings wiping out much of the remainder of Bell Labs , triggering a notable diaspora for the respected machine learning group there. As the recession progresses, we may easily see more firings as companies in particular reach a point where they can no longer support research. There are a couple positives to the recession as well. Both the implosion of Wall Street (which siphoned off smart people) and the general difficulty of getting a job coming out of an undergraduate education s
6 0.67595226 358 hunch net-2009-06-01-Multitask Poisoning
7 0.65910739 255 hunch net-2007-07-13-The View From China
8 0.65731037 51 hunch net-2005-04-01-The Producer-Consumer Model of Research
9 0.65551513 257 hunch net-2007-07-28-Asking questions
10 0.64073962 295 hunch net-2008-04-12-It Doesn’t Stop
11 0.62503654 241 hunch net-2007-04-28-The Coming Patent Apocalypse
12 0.61642891 73 hunch net-2005-05-17-A Short Guide to PhD Graduate Study
13 0.61436558 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
14 0.59954602 333 hunch net-2008-12-27-Adversarial Academia
15 0.59724772 110 hunch net-2005-09-10-“Failure” is an option
16 0.58658558 296 hunch net-2008-04-21-The Science 2.0 article
17 0.58566254 91 hunch net-2005-07-10-Thinking the Unthought
18 0.57385498 36 hunch net-2005-03-05-Funding Research
19 0.57284307 208 hunch net-2006-09-18-What is missing for online collaborative research?
20 0.56905133 142 hunch net-2005-12-22-Yes , I am applying
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.379), (27, 0.213), (38, 0.063), (53, 0.058), (55, 0.055), (94, 0.12)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94213557 205 hunch net-2006-09-07-Objective and subjective interpretations of probability
Introduction: An amusing tidbit (reproduced without permission) from Herman Chernoff’s delightful monograph, “Sequential analysis and optimal design”: The use of randomization raises a philosophical question which is articulated by the following probably apocryphal anecdote. The metallurgist told his friend the statistician how he planned to test the effect of heat on the strength of a metal bar by sawing the bar into six pieces. The first two would go into the hot oven, the next two into the medium oven, and the last two into the cool oven. The statistician, horrified, explained how he should randomize to avoid the effect of a possible gradient of strength in the metal bar. The method of randomization was applied, and it turned out that the randomized experiment called for putting the first two pieces into the hot oven, the next two into the medium oven, and the last two into the cool oven. “Obviously, we can’t do that,” said the metallurgist. “On the contrary, you have to do that,” said the st
same-blog 2 0.85789418 76 hunch net-2005-05-29-Bad ideas
Introduction: I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. Some of this is necessary to the process of research. For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a
3 0.85028279 39 hunch net-2005-03-10-Breaking Abstractions
Introduction: Sam Roweis ‘s comment reminds me of a more general issue that comes up in doing research: abstractions always break. Real number’s aren’t. Most real numbers can not be represented with any machine. One implication of this is that many real-number based algorithms have difficulties when implemented with floating point numbers. The box on your desk is not a turing machine. A turing machine can compute anything computable, given sufficient time. A typical computer fails terribly when the state required for the computation exceeds some limit. Nash equilibria aren’t equilibria. This comes up when trying to predict human behavior based on the result of the equilibria computation. Often, it doesn’t work. The probability isn’t. Probability is an abstraction expressing either our lack of knowledge (the Bayesian viewpoint) or fundamental randomization (the frequentist viewpoint). From the frequentist viewpoint the lack of knowledge typically precludes actually knowing the fu
4 0.81994212 486 hunch net-2013-07-10-Thoughts on Artificial Intelligence
Introduction: David McAllester starts a blog .
5 0.8083334 314 hunch net-2008-08-24-Mass Customized Medicine in the Future?
Introduction: This post is about a technology which could develop in the future. Right now, a new drug might be tested by finding patients with some diagnosis and giving or not giving them a drug according to a secret randomization. The outcome is observed, and if the average outcome for those treated is measurably better than the average outcome for those not treated, the drug might become a standard treatment. Generalizing this, a filter F sorts people into two groups: those for treatment A and those not for treatment B based upon observations x . To measure the outcome, you randomize between treatment and nontreatment of group A and measure the relative performance of the treatment. A problem often arises: in many cases the treated group does not do better than the nontreated group. A basic question is: does this mean the treatment is bad? With respect to the filter F it may mean that, but with respect to another filter F’ , the treatment might be very effective. For exampl
6 0.66497976 8 hunch net-2005-02-01-NIPS: Online Bayes
7 0.578982 196 hunch net-2006-07-13-Regression vs. Classification as a Primitive
8 0.56533849 140 hunch net-2005-12-14-More NIPS Papers II
9 0.56316912 5 hunch net-2005-01-26-Watchword: Probability
10 0.56093478 286 hunch net-2008-01-25-Turing’s Club for Machine Learning
11 0.55748171 95 hunch net-2005-07-14-What Learning Theory might do
12 0.5541504 359 hunch net-2009-06-03-Functionally defined Nonlinear Dynamic Models
13 0.55289119 435 hunch net-2011-05-16-Research Directions for Machine Learning and Algorithms
14 0.55256391 351 hunch net-2009-05-02-Wielding a New Abstraction
15 0.55233032 237 hunch net-2007-04-02-Contextual Scaling
16 0.55189705 143 hunch net-2005-12-27-Automated Labeling
17 0.5473128 14 hunch net-2005-02-07-The State of the Reduction
18 0.54699963 347 hunch net-2009-03-26-Machine Learning is too easy
19 0.54646379 235 hunch net-2007-03-03-All Models of Learning have Flaws
20 0.54645461 258 hunch net-2007-08-12-Exponentiated Gradient