I thought this was about World Models paper. There maybe you can give them a little leeway: AI has more slack equating humans and machines. This paper reeks of

I thought this was about World Models paper. There maybe you can give them a little leeway: AI has more slack equating humans and machines. This paper reeks of antromorphization for the hype of it. It gets you headlines like this, but is probably detrimental to the field as a whole. Part of the Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarship > In the first avenue, a new technical term is coined that has a suggestive colloquial meaning, thus sneaking in connotations without the need to argue for them. This often manifests in anthropomorphic characterizations of tasks (reading comprehension [31] and music composition [59]) and techniques (curiosity [66] and fear [48]). A number of papers name components of proposed models in a manner suggestive of human cognition, e.g. “thought vectors” [36] and the “consciousness prior” [4]. Our goal is not to rid the academic literature of all such language; when properly qualified, these connections might communicate a fruitful source of inspiration. However, when a suggestive term is assigned technical meaning, each subsequent paper has no choice but to confuse its readers, either by embracing the term or by replacing it. http://approximatelycorrect.com/2018/07/10/troubling-trends-in-machine-learning-scholarship/ http://approximatelycorrect.com/2018/07/10/troubling-trends-...