>But I think the "no" is because of the uniqueness of ML In a thread where people are parsing the meaning of consensus with respect to climate change, citing t

>But I think the "no" is because of the uniqueness of ML In a thread where people are parsing the meaning of consensus with respect to climate change, citing the atypical example of the state of consensus in a unique field is going to contribute to the loss of context that makes people confused about the original subject at issue in this thread. It's great to know about BigGAN vs StyleGAN, but I'm almost positive people will skim this detour into increasingly detailed elaboration on machine learning and think the upshot is supposed to be "and therefore we shouldn't put stock in climate science consensus."