My comment was on the article, which was flat out wrong, and thanks for pointing that out in the paper I had missed that. Their paper was still unimaginative.

My comment was on the article, which was flat out wrong, and thanks for pointing that out in the paper I had missed that. Their paper was still unimaginative. Trying a handful of vanilla networks doesn’t prove anything. The right framing would have been, “here’s an interesting case to work on” instead of pretending to have identified a basic limitation of neural networks. This is more like a research idea than research.