I’m saying that papers should be read with a default position of skepticism and consideration of the motivations of the authors (and they all have an angle). Wh

I’m saying that papers should be read with a default position of skepticism and consideration of the motivations of the authors (and they all have an angle). When I read an ML paper with authors from Google, I assume they have an angle. When I read an ML Ethics paper with authors from Google, that already went double. Now it’s triple. So look at my argument differently. Every single scientific paper you read should be read as non-objective as a starting position. If it can overcome starting from that position with data, methodology, and reasoning, it’s a solid scientific paper.