upvote

points

by kooi16 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kaijia16 hours ago|
next
[-]
you get materially better marketing at the cost of accurately describing the math results in the title and abstract.
reply
upvoteby Anon8414 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Mass media doesn’t read math.
reply
upvoteby kooi13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Mass media doesent do ML reseaech.
reply
upvoteby nickpsecurity13 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The math can be misinterpreted, misapplied, or not fit reality. That's why high-assurance security mandated a combination of things:

1. English specification of the system and its goals

2. Formal, mathematical specification of the system and its goals

3. Mathematical proof the system met its goals

4. Code implementing that system with a proof, often informal, that the code embodied the informal and formal design.

5. Tests of all functionality to prove the design and code worked.

6. Independent analysis of the above to find flaws in them.

7. If the implementation has concurrency or parallelism, more errors can occur due to that. There were techniques to mitigate it.

Each step found problems in systems made by professionals. Mathematical work and coding both have a long history of errors in their on fields. Combining them increases the likelihood of error.

reply
upvoteby kooi13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure what all these words mean. These are mathematical results, I'm not sure why people are acting like they are anything otherwise.
reply
upvoteby nickpsecurity10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Math is a social process that involves mental concepts, symbols for them, and discussion about them. It also needs peer review. If you see math in a paper, that's only one part of the process.

Further, in machine learning, we see lots of papers with math that doesn't lead to anything useful. Most papers claiming advances over prior architectures don't pan out in later testing. So, there will be skepticism when people make performance claims like the authors'. The best response is just independent testing.

reply