I see nothing wrong with professors communicating the value of what they are building as effectively as possible. If you believe a problem is an important problem to solve then you should work hard to convince other people it is important.
>As for the Media Lab, they're really selling the image of technological progress.
Disclaimer: I've worked with researchers at the DCI group in the media lab on hash function cryptanalysis.
The media lab is made up of a large number of research teams doing very different stuff. It is unfair to just say "the media lab does X or operates like X". Look at the research from the DCI group at the media on zero knowledge proofs systems [0], hash-based accumulators [1], or work on Ring Signatures [2].
> The media lab is made up of a large number of research teams doing very different stuff. It is unfair to just say "the media lab does X or operates like X". Look at the research from the DCI group at the media on zero knowledge proofs systems [0], hash-based accumulators [1], or work on Ring Signatures [2].
I have no dog in the fight, but I feel like if any entity is branding itself as a discrete entity, then you take the lumps of the branding just as you take the brand recognition. If you're "part of the MIT Media lab", then this affects your reputation in the eyes of the public.
Exactly. I really don't like the rhetorical trick of taking a generalization and disputing it because it's not absolute. Especially when, as you say, the people involved have chosen to carry that banner proudly.
> I see nothing wrong with professors communicating the value of what they are building as effectively as possible.
Oh for sure, the grad student get value out of it because there's someone established advocating their work. For people w/ no reputation and marketing know-how, being cross-selled like this is of value, in fact it's one of the primary value add of the PI.
> The media lab is made up of a large number of research teams doing very different stuff.
Yeah fair, wish I knew more about cryptography so I can comment. In general, I don't think narratives are "bad" per-se, or they are strictly less valuable than rigorous mathematically proven technical work. For example every nation has a shared myth/narrative right, and US's myth of freedom of thought and social equality encourage lots of people to try hard, which I think of as a good thing in general.
>As for the Media Lab, they're really selling the image of technological progress.
Disclaimer: I've worked with researchers at the DCI group in the media lab on hash function cryptanalysis.
The media lab is made up of a large number of research teams doing very different stuff. It is unfair to just say "the media lab does X or operates like X". Look at the research from the DCI group at the media on zero knowledge proofs systems [0], hash-based accumulators [1], or work on Ring Signatures [2].
[0]: zk-sharks combining succinct verification and public-coin setup https://dci.mit.edu/zksharks
[1]: utreexo: a dynamic accumulator for bitcoin state https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/611.pdf
[2]: It wasn't me! Repudiability and (Un)claimability of Ring Signatures https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/135.pdf