[aleph_minus_one]

> Honestly, is there a big difference anymore? The vast majority of papers I read are either by industry directly or have industry as a partner (as an author, not just acknowledgements).

Read more pure math papers, then you will see the difference. :-)

[godelski]

I thought we were talking ML here. I mean you're not wrong (I do do this) but context. But in ML, well... I mean even Max Welling is connected with Microsoft.

[aleph_minus_one]

> I thought we were talking ML here.

This is no contradiction: there exist quite pure math papers whose content is very relevant for the mathematics behand ML algorithms. :-)

I do have the impression that the kind of research in ML that is not strongly associated with the recent "machine-learning industrial complex" by now tends to become published in another subject area.

[godelski]

Sure, I agree with you. I just wouldn't refer to that work as pure math. And let's be real, most people are not working on the theoretical side of ML. Realistically people are anti theory in the ML space and it's really weird to me because it's a self fulfilling prophecy and the complaints are "it's not very good because not a lot of community effort hasn't been put in so let's not waste our time"