7 ms·
This is the same group (Ayush Chopra & Ramesh Raskar) that previously published the highly circulated (clickbait) article saying that 95% of AI pilots were fail
by a-posteriori 10mo ago
This is the same group (Ayush Chopra & Ramesh Raskar) that previously published the highly circulated (clickbait) article saying that 95% of AI pilots were failing based on extremely weak study design and questions that didn't even support the takeaways.
Anything coming from Ayush and Ramesh should be highly scrutinized. Ramesh should stick to studying Camera Culture in the Media Lab.
I will believe a study from MIT when it comes out of CSAIL.
- zkmon 10mo agoYep. Take it with some salt. Unfortunately, the quality of research is struck by sales pitch and hype mongering.
- a-posteriori 10mo agoIt's been really disheartening to see the impact of media / hype mongering on groups within research institutions. IMO, it's clear there is massive demand for any research that shows large positive or negative impacts of AI on the economy. The recent WSJ article about Aiden Toner-Rodgers is another great example of demand for AI impact outstripping the supply of AI impact. Obviously this thread's example is just shoddy research vs. the outright data fraud of Toner-Rodgers, but it's hard to not see the pattern. I hope that MIT and other research institutions can figure this out...
- balaclava9 10mo agofascinating story. amazing how people want to believe in the AI savior.
- mistrial9 10mo agoscience says rebut the sources and the thesis, not a personal attack on the authors
- gus_massa 10mo agoScience says people have reputation, journal have impact index, ... Life is too short to read every single article, once someone cry wolf a few times, other researchers in the area will just ignore them.
- sciencegeek123 10mo agoYou should read the paper (or at least the abstract) before making personal attacks. It makes no claims about job disruption (quite the opposite actually).