> It's probably easier for someone versed in the field to just read the paper to determine if it's interesting. > If you're using the conference as a quick pa

> It's probably easier for someone versed in the field to just read the paper to determine if it's interesting. > If you're using the conference as a quick pass/fail as you skim through the abstracts of hundreds of papers, ok You answered your own statement, I think. Most researchers will skip a paper in a second tier conference. In fact, most I know won't read an entire paper - they'll only read some of it and skip stuff. You're correct that I am not an active researcher (otherwise I would not have time to be commenting). I merely did some research back in college. But honestly that little experience gives me a huge leg up on most HN commenters in understanding research. It's unfortunate that the only reason this paper is #1 on HN is because it has a cool title. That being said, MNIST is not really a disqualifier. (Unfortunately) MNIST is the most popular dataset referenced in NIPS 2016 papers (https://twitter.com/benhamner/status/805864969065689088 https://twitter.com/benhamner/status/805864969065689088). The handwaving is also forgivable; many NIPS papers handwave a lot too.