joshuaeckroth

https://aitopics.org/

NLP, genetic algorithms, and reinforcement learning.

Another perspective, in which we talk about on integrating AI into existing workflows, among other lessons:

Smith, Reid G., and Joshua Eckroth. "Building AI Applications: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow." AI Magazine 38.1 (2017): 6-22.

https://www2.stetson.edu/~jeckroth/downloads/smith-eckroth-2...

[1]: http://videolectures.net/aaai2012_papadimitriou_computable_n...

On a more general note, I think people should not make claims about what happens in situations (e.g. PhD programs) that one has not experienced herself. Claims like "whatever that person learned in college could have been learned outside college" is too often false simply because no one person can experience both sides of the debate.

So I love Lisp and I love Clojure for being a new Lisp.

JoC talks directly to me. It references works and people I know about, but most of which I do not know enough about. It talks about how amazing Lisp is but tells me even more than I already knew. Much more. It's written as if the authors are saying, "Yes of course Lisp and Clojure are great, but here are all the reasons WHY." For example, the section "nil Pun With Care" is obviously written for someone who knows the variations on 'nil' found in different Lisps. JoC's style is similar to Rich Hickey's famous presentations ("Yes, nil is different in Clojure... ok, let's just get through this slide, you knew we'd have to at some point...").

JoC really takes Lisp appreciation to the next level. I was waiting for something like this!

I also feel slide 6 is generally a negative view of CS, since it refers to "The Matrix", and the joke in the notes is about how people already upload their brains to the web and escape "real-life". Finally, "these are some of the LESS interesting things we talk about in computer science!"

This slide does not show that creating tech is for everyone, simply that, in this case women at least, make significant use of it (for better or worse...).

It's perfectly ok to value competence and interest-level over diversity. But why are there significantly fewer women in computer science? Because they are less competent or interested for some biological reason? Absurd.

Few women are in computer science for a host of reasons (and probably more we do not know about). Perhaps the slides I pointed out in the presentation are part of the reasons. It's hard to be sure but when we give presentations about joining CS, perhaps we can specifically try to avoid isolating women. (Of course, I have not solidly argued that those particular slides do isolate women.) And I mean specifically, intentionally avoid isolating women. That is, read over the presentation twice; the second reading is to find such issues.

Slide 6 represents Facebook with an attractive woman. (why?) Slide 13 compares steak to salad. (why?) (and note that it's not as if women do not eat steak, but culturally steak is a more "manly" food than salad)