I remember reading the original paper [0] when it came out last year, and honestly I found it pretty weak compared to other google or deepmind papers, particula

I remember reading the original paper [0] when it came out last year, and honestly I found it pretty weak compared to other google or deepmind papers, particularly the comparison to Simulated Annealing methods and the lack of data to enable reproducibility. Felt more like a marketing paper based on proprietary data (the paper reported how they were able to produce an efficient floorplan for one of google's internal processors). Point being that aside from the controversy being stoked based on previous firings, I'm personally curious about the results showing problems on the original paper (whose senior author was Jeff Dean btw) [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03544-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03544-w (the endgadget story has a link to the full pdf)