| ▲ | wqtz an hour ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nobody will speak favourably about the factorization of anything. The "publish or perish" culture is going through what is essentially the same transformation brought by the invention of the assembly line. Academia, "as an industry", is experiencing what the automobile industry went through a century ago. Grant approvals are public. Just go through them, and you will see a pattern emerge. The argument I keep hearing is, "AI is good in the hands of a good researcher." 5–7 papers based on the same dataset? 5–7 papers on the same core topic, published within a six-month period? They tell me that this is their core specialization and that I simply don't understand how science works. Science is a self-governed, self-serving, and artificially defined concept. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Loquebantur an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You conflate a host of different issues and ultimately miss the point. Science is an ideal, the pursuit for knowledge for its own sake. Science is a boon for humanity because it provides an unparalleled degree of prediction and control of the natural world. But it doesn't tell you what to do with that. A "capitalist" will seek personal, short-sighted gain from it, socializing repercussions, no matter how devastating. They will gladly poison society and the planet and sell it to you as "your own fault". Their life-span is limited still, so what do they care? Technological capability exceeding human wisdom is the core issue here. You need scientific understanding on your own side in order to know and judge the alternatives beyond what vested interests feel obliged to tell you. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lirolero an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[dead] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||