<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Jean-Marc,<br>
<br>
The problem is systemic; it goes down into the very roots of
modern "science".<br>
<br>
The only solution that $20m could buy would be:<br>
<br>
1) An institute run by someone with ethical principles, who would
use the money to attract further funding until it could actually
take on board researchers with creative ideas and ethical
principles, and then free them from the yoke of
publish-crap-in-quantity-or-perish.<br>
<br>
2) An AI/Cognitive system development tool that would allow people
to build and explore complex cognitive systems without being
shackled to one particular architecture (like deep learning and
its many descendents).<br>
<br>
A propos of (2) that is one thing I proposed in a (rejected) grant
proposal. It would have cost $6.4m.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Richard Loosemore<br>
Cornell University<br>
...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpl72@cornell.edu">rpl72@cornell.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/19/22 11:31 AM, Fellous, Jean-Marc - (fellous) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PH7PR19MB5515034863FA6167E1161783AA8F9@PH7PR19MB5515.namprd19.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color:
inherit;">Assuming there are funders on the list, and
funding-related people, including program officers (and believe
or not, there are!): if you had $20M to invest in the sort of
things we do on this list: how would we make things better? Can
we brainstorm an alternative system that allows for innovating
publications and effective funding?</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color:
inherit;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color:
inherit;">Jean-Marc</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Connectionists
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu"><connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu></a> on
behalf of Richard Loosemore <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rloosemore@susaro.com"><rloosemore@susaro.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 18, 2022 1:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu"><connectionists@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXT]Connectionists: If you believe in your
work ...</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="text-align:center"><font color="red"><strong>External
Email</strong><br>
</font></p>
<br>
On 7/17/22 11:52 AM, Grossberg, Stephen wrote:<br>
<br>
> ... if you believe in your work, and the criticisms of it
are not valid, do not give up. ...<br>
<br>
<p>> ... all criticisms by reviewers are valuable and should
be taken into account in your revision.</p>
> Even if a reviewer's criticisms are, to your mind,
wrong-headed, they represent the<br>
> viewpoint of a more-than-usually-qualified reader who has
given you the privilege<br>
> of taking enough time to read your article.<br>
<p>Really?<br>
</p>
<p>1) I believe in my work, and the criticisms of it are not
valid. I did not give up, and the net result of not giving up
was ... nothing.<br>
</p>
<p>2) No reviewer who has ever commented on my work has shown
the slightest sign that they understood anything in it.</p>
<p>3) Good plumbers are more than usually qualified in their
field, and if one of those gave you the privilege of taking
enough time to read your article and give nonsensical
comments, would you pay any attention to their viewpoint?<br>
</p>
<p>** - **<br>
</p>
<p>I have spent my career fighting against this system, to no
avail.</p>
I have watched charlatans bamboozle the crowd with pointless
mathematics, and get published.
<p>I have watched people use teams of subordinates to pump out
streams of worthless papers that inflate their prestige.</p>
<p>I have written grant proposals that were exquisitely tuned to
the stated goal of the grant, and then watched as the grant
money went to people whose proposals had only the faintest
imaginable connection to the stated goal of the grant.</p>
<p>** - **</p>
<p>The quoted remarks, above, somehow distilled all of that
history and left me shaking with rage at the stupidity.<br>
</p>
<p>I have been a member of the Connectionists mailing list since
the early 1990s, and before that I had been working on neural
nets since 1980.</p>
<p>No more.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Best,</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Richard</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">-- </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Richard Loosemore</span><span
style=""></span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Cornell University</span><span
style=""></span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">...</span><span style=""></span></p>
<p><a class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated x_moz-txt-link-freetext
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:rpl72@cornell.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpl72@cornell.edu</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>