> And it's a really common pattern in neural networks' recent history: "How did they perform reasonably well on this task? We aren't sure, but the speculation i

> And it's a really common pattern in neural networks' recent history: "How did they perform reasonably well on this task? We aren't sure, but the speculation is that they magically solved artificial general intelligence under the hood." Usually this is followed up by "I don't know how it works, but let's see if a bigger network can make even prettier text." Layperson here, but my impression is that "let's see if a bigger network can make even prettier text" has _worked_ far beyond the point most people expected it would stop working. Also my layperson impression: most "researchers" that are on the cutting edge of cool things are more interested in seeing what cool things they can do than on doing rigorous science (which makes sense -- if you optimize for rigorous science, your stuff probably isn't as flashy as the stuff produced by people optimizing for flash).