3 ms·
> Our results present abilities that are, as far as we know, unheard of. Look, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ridiculous level of salesmanship t
by yespleasethrow 8y ago
> Our results present abilities that are, as far as we know, unheard of.
Look, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ridiculous level of salesmanship that authors now feel is necessary to get a paper into NIPS. I can only hope the reviewers might ask the researchers to tone back the crazy hype pitch, but I know better than to expect that.
Presenting things that were previously unheard of... well, that would be what scientific papers are for, aren't they?
- greeneggs 8y agoCut them some slack, it's a joke, a pun.
- yespleasethrow 8y agoHa! It went straight over my head.
- millstone 8y agoI thought you were playing off it with "...tone back the crazy hype pitch..."
- chmod775 8y ago> Presenting things that were previously unheard of... well, that would be what scientific papers are for, aren't they? Not really. Just replicating existing findings, summarizing knowledge that would otherwise be spread out across multiple papers, articulating an opinion, or just applying something another paper did in a similar fashion ("I did the same but with blues music!") is a perfectly valid endeavor. You should however state what your paper contains somewhere at the beginning, which is what they did there - albeit in a "flashy" manner.