I like his points on active reading of research paper. In my seminar we always had to ask critical question when we were reading. I also believe there is two w

I like his points on active reading of research paper. In my seminar we always had to ask critical question when we were reading. I also believe there is two way to read a paper. One way is to be critical (normal case). This is necessary if we want to learn something. Another way is to pretend the author is correct, and try to implement things as quick as possible (applying research approach). The reason is to establish a small "framework" to start our research for ourselves or a baseline. After that we can be critical about the authors work. For active reading we were taught to go through abstract, results and conclusion. In case of graphics paper that uses ML, we can immediately notice artifacts, inconsistency and minor disturbances. Then, we can be critical on their method, on their claim and reason why things are that way!