No need to apologize, I like HN precisely because people point out the flaws/confusing parts of my comments/opinions. I agree with everything you say and am hap

No need to apologize, I like HN precisely because people point out the flaws/confusing parts of my comments/opinions. I agree with everything you say and am happy you said it because this is how unsupervised learning should be viewed. I.e., a better ROI in specific cases. However, I have seen too often the "cake of AI" where the batter is unsupervised, the icing is supervised, and the cherry on top is reinforcement learning. Somehow, this image connotes that unsupervised is at the core of AI and also the most important. For what is a cake consisting of only icing and a cherry? Where I disagree with you is that the obsession is purely driven from "results-per-dollar-invested", at least in the academic world. That being said, unsupervised learning is a great tool and definitely worthy of research. To summarize, my comment was completely tangential of this paper (the authors make no such claims). It was more of a stream of consciousness comment that arose because I envisioned someone reading the paper and saying "see!, unsupervised learning leads to real understanding, no humans needed!"