Carl Corea presenting our paper on “explainable DMN” @BPMConf#BPM2024. A nice example of XAI foundations used to solve a very pragmatic problem in operational decision marking.
@Quasilocal Selling toilet paper and collecting empty bottles is common, in my experience. The item choice may be based on Scandinavian pragmatism: every household will need it eventually. The kids are shy and assume everyone knows the social context.
The value of ‘wasting time’ on deep thinking is often overlooked in a scientific ecosystem increasingly tainted by Wall Street’s productivity mindset.
https://t.co/hNTA74DNOr
Increasing productivity in one area means people are incentivized to do more of that thing -- possibly to the point where it starts reducing overall productivity. E.g. computerization has dramatically increased the amount and length of documents companies generate, and the number of jobs that consist purely of handling documents.
Scientific publishing etiquette:
1. Scientists should be allowed to publish their research.
2. Publications should include the names of all contributors in the author list.
3. Junior contributors who actually did the work should be placed at the beginning of the author list.
4. Managers and senior contributors should almost always be listed at themtail end of the author list.
5. Managers should never be listed just because they are managers. To be a coauthor, they must have made non-negligible technical contributions.
6. Managers should never, ever put themselves in competition with researchers in their organization.
If you stop researchers from publishing, you kill their career.
That means you have to buy their life, and you'll only get people whose scientific aspirations are sufficiently low to be for sale.
We are pleased to announce the CfP on our TGDK special issue on Autonomous Systems and
Knowledge Graphs:
- Deadline: 15.06. '24
- Notification (1st round): 15.08. '24
- Publication: Q4 2024
Info: https://t.co/680vnYBvrs
@tgdkjournal@SabrinaKirrane@TerryRPayne@VTamma
@Quasilocal IMO, we need sth like arXiv + community peer review/edit. work (feedback + stamp that the research is reasonable/not crack-pot) replacing the forrest of confs & journals that is mostly about status signaling (& money). Dagstuhl publishing is a good start: https://t.co/bpB4NLrn28
A lot of programming is about shedding responsibility, mostly by delegating to third-party tools. It makes perfect sense; we can't do everything ourselves. But it also makes programming feel claustrophobic when we're surrounded by incidental constraints that we didn't choose.
Since AI base models are going to become a basic infrastructure, people (and the industry) will demand that it be open source.
Just like the software infrastructure of the internet.
Also, human feedback *must* be crowd-sourced, Wikipedia style, if we want those base systems to become the common repository of human knowledge.