Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

Is there an interest in resurrecting technical discussions of the latest research? [D] (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by we_are_mammals@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Technical discussions of new research seem to have mostly disappeared in this subreddit, because researchers became a small fraction of its immense readership of 3e6 members.

So I created a subreddit to host such discussions. A "safe space" for researchers, if you will, with strict standards for content^1 . I seeded it with posts about a few recent papers I thought were interesting and my own takes on them, to get the discussion started.

But then I said to myself: "You don't have time to manage a subreddit. WTF are you doing?" and deleted it all. Nevertheless, I'd like to see someone else, perhaps someone with more time, try to do it.

^1: Its main rule was: "No low-effort or low-expertise posts or comments: If your average ML PhD student, or someone with a higher level of expertise wouldn't have posted something, then it does not belong here." Other rules dealt with the format of the posts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Successful-Western27@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those are just **four** links **I myself** have posted and they have ~75 comments on them. I pointed that out in the original comment but you skipped over that.

[–] we_are_mammals@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I myself have posted

But the point you were trying to prove was that the discussions were "constant". How does picking your own threads spanning 2 months support it at all?

The OP didn't say that the discussions were completely gone. Yes, there are some, but pretty thin and usually glib. I don't count "Wow! This is exciting. I'll have to take a look at this awesome new paper!" as discussion. A bot harvesting upvotes could post this.