>This stop and interrogate shit shouldn't be legal.
I've started to call nonsense like this 'illegal but allowed by courts'
We can all read the constitution and our laws. We've been told the legal system tells us what they mean, but increasingly, the explanations we are provided and the decisions that are made seem at odds with the basic. Things like parallel construction, the good faith exception, and pretextual stops makes a mockery of people's rights and the ability of the justice system to even evaluate police conduct.
Theres a spectrum in here between soverign citizens and serious citizen pushback on legal overreach...but its a spectrum increasingly worth reflecting on. Obviously this is US specific.
There's no punishment for abusing the system like this though. They'll keep trying again and again, just like lawmakers themselves.
"Ah, the law we came up with us unconstitutional and didn't stand up to scrutiny? We'll get em next time!"
Eventually that "next time" does pass and the people doing it will never suffer consewuences for it despite undermining the very institution of representative democracy.
The standardized ecu was introduced as a cost savings and fairness measure in 2008. The contract was won by McLaren Applied (which was part of the same McLaren that is the current reigning champion but is now spun off and owned by private equity).
The teams basically get an sdk and are largely responsible for the software the cars run at pretty much everything above the hardware layer of abstraction.
As a weird piece of history, McLaren applied was not the original winner of the contract for the first standardized ecu in 2008. When it was announced, in 2006, Microsoft was.
Better engine design, for one. For example, if you have a truck division which is making very high end turbos for high endurance applications, you can build a "split turbo" with a very long yet precisely balanced shaft between the compressor and the turbine, and route the piping the most efficient way to reduce penalties of routing air via bendy pipes, and have a more powerful engine than others.
Think raspberry pi on steroids that are on steroids that are on steroids.
It is primarily the hardware to software interface. It runs every feature in the car that converts software code into an out out voltage to do a thing. It is also how everyone interfaces with the car - teams, drivers, f1 tv, and even the race track itself.
The Youtube channel Numberphile released a video yesterday with an ~45min interview with Tristan Buckmaster about the Navier Stokes solution, controversy, and all the topics in between. Their description is:
Tristan Buckmaster speaks about his role in the controversial Navier-Stokes solution. We are seeking an interview with OpenAI too. ... Since the video was finalised and uploaded, we have heard back from OpenAI and we're trying to schedule an interview. If we're successful, it will be uploaded ASAP and linked here.
I teach college… you rent wrong on what they output, you are wrong on the inference drawn from it.
On a regular basis I have students bring me “machine learning” models they have trained, which sounds great. But they have no idea what problem they are solving, what data they have or should have, and no idea why that method, etc. There is no understanding. They use words and concepts from a broad variety of fields, with confidence, but with little deep understanding. The Internet and AI give access to knowledge which is necessary but not sufficient for wisdom.
While K-12 bears a lot of blame (as a system not “teachers”) I’ve come to believe the problem is more societal. What we value and what kids logically perceive will be them ahead in life. If all they ever see is that surface level performance of knowledge is enough…why bother with more?
Many people, see prior conversation on HN, have already decided that AI solved it. The standards of reasoning and rigor in academia are complex enough that we all argue over them and harumph as we epistemically trespass on each other's domains.
The public, really humans if care for Herbert Simon, are much more apt to evaluate knowledge emotionally and by other standards. We may see them as wrong but standards only matter in context. The NYT, HN, and Annals of Mathematics will always have different standards of truth.
If you believe the totality of the document, there was more shadiness in how OpenAI acted than just timing. Save other things they are accused of, the progression from rumors to replication would attract much less scrutiny. With those in mind timing begins to look suspicious at best.
Would anyone be surprised if major model companies had tagged the accounts of competitor employees for extra tracking? Given the concerns about distillation and bench marking it hardly seems irrational, but how it is used matters quite a lot.
I’ll go back to the point about authorship. I’m Not a mathematician but I am in academia. if you are fucking around with authorship you are immediately suspect.
That aspect alone would/should be unthinkable to any serious academic. Authorship reflects who did the work and changing it for business competition reasons should be a red flag for multiple different reasons. They include, the sheer tactlessness of treating a major theoretical advancement as a competitive posturing first, the norms of academia second, and all the misunderstandings of the culture of the disciplines culture that people will now suspect are hiding beneath the visible surface (insert topography joke).
Math as a field is fairly unique even in how they list authorship. It was long the norm that authorship to be alphabetical because the idea of first, second, senior etc authorship is harder to define than many other fields.
“The stated rationale for alphabetical order is that it treats co-authorship as intellectually joint work: every listed author’s name carries equal weight, and no one has to negotiate, or be seen to negotiate, over billing. That is a genuine advantage over position-coded conventions, where disputes over who is “first author” are one of the most common sources of authorship conflict in fields that use them” [0]
That norm is changing, slowly, but one option people are pursuing is notable: randomized author order. Their is a perception that alphabetical is too biased…that’s the world OpenAI is stepping into when they make that offer of authorship to one scholar with a demand that he exclude his partner.
I can’t speak to the facts of anything else in this, but if a grad student came to me and said someone made them that offer, I would tell them to run and if they were brave report it.
OAI's side of the story is that they discovered the approaches (and indeed solved problems - Euler equations vs NS equations) differed. They then offered Buckmaster lead authorship of OAI's proof, without Alpöge. But they never demanded that Alpöge be stripped of coauthorship on resolving the regularity of the Euler equations. At least that's the claim.
To me it’s telling that the screen shot he posted doesn’t really support any of what he says in the post and the screenshot doesn’t contradict the other sides claims
Neither side has offered hard proof for their interpretation (i.e. malice vs innocence), so shrug. If one is dead set on forming an opinion that's fine but it's all vibes until we know more. Science & math especially is no stranger to bitter disputes over precedence / authorship.
Kind of a tangent, but in some fields authorship is actually more of a formal rank: once you're in the group you appear on every paper. A good fraction of the "authors" won't even know that a paper is being published in their name, and the vast majority haven't read a word of it.
In these fields it can be quite a challenge to not appear on a paper.
I've started to call nonsense like this 'illegal but allowed by courts'
We can all read the constitution and our laws. We've been told the legal system tells us what they mean, but increasingly, the explanations we are provided and the decisions that are made seem at odds with the basic. Things like parallel construction, the good faith exception, and pretextual stops makes a mockery of people's rights and the ability of the justice system to even evaluate police conduct.
Theres a spectrum in here between soverign citizens and serious citizen pushback on legal overreach...but its a spectrum increasingly worth reflecting on. Obviously this is US specific.
reply