In complete agreement, not only the title but the entire article is cluttered with click-bait/hype wording. Simply refer to the paper instead [1], which is well

In complete agreement, not only the title but the entire article is cluttered with click-bait/hype wording. Simply refer to the paper instead [1], which is well written and should be accessible to even those with a modest understanding of the area if you stay away from the technical details. From my own scientific viewpoint, I think the finding is very neat and at least moderately surprising. So I did enjoy my quick read of the work and even wonder if the finding will be transferable to my own research area. [1]: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/14f2ebeab937ca128186e7ba876faef9-Abstract.html https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/14f2ebeab937c... However, this is now the second time this week I have spotted shoddy writing coming from unite.ai – I am referring to the conspiracy-esque spin from [2] that we saw just a few days ago. Apparently they come from the same author even, that seems to put a great deal of emphasis on their articles reaching the Hacker News front page [3]. I am not sure how I feel about this, I would like to believe that “we” as a community are better than to fall for hype and click bait; I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of there being professional prestige in getting onto the front page. [2]: https://www.unite.ai/a-cartel-of-influential-datasets-are-dominating-machine-learning-research-new-study-suggests https://www.unite.ai/a-cartel-of-influential-datasets-are-do... [3]: https://martinanderson.ai https://martinanderson.ai