3 ms·
From Alex Irpan's response: I was sour on the results themselves, because they smelled too much like PR, like a result that was shaped by PR, warped in a way t
by ArtWomb 8y ago
From Alex Irpan's response:
I was sour on the results themselves, because they smelled too much like PR, like a result that was shaped by PR, warped in a way that preferred flashy numbers too much and applicability too little
Harsh! OpenReview's double blind system seems to work quite well in this regard as a peer review mechanism.
Quick Opinions on Go-Explore
https://www.alexirpan.com/2018/11/27/go-explore.html https://www.alexirpan.com/2018/11/27/go-explore.html
- vanderZwan 8y agoOf course it's harsh when you pull the quote out of context: > Like Go-Explore, this post had interesting ideas that I hadn’t seen before, which is everything you could want out of research. And like Go-Explore, I was sour on the results themselves, because they smelled too much like PR, like a result that was shaped by PR, warped in a way that preferred flashy numbers too much and applicability too little.
- gjm11 8y agoThat little bit is actually talking about a different, earlier, AI game-playing effort. The bulk of Irpan's blog post is describing Go-Explore, and it is about as harsh as the grandparent of this comment suggests.
- vanderZwan 8y agoI think the writing article is making it very clear what he dislikes: that the research is twisted by PR into making inappropriate claims and comparisons. Even though it contains interesting and novel ideas. That is in no way harsh on the actual research and validity of the results itself.