> Trivially explained as "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Trivial, vacuous, and wrong. It is not plausible to correctly predict the output of a seri

> Trivially explained as "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Trivial, vacuous, and wrong. It is not plausible to correctly predict the output of a serious Python program by coincidence. See the detailed examples in the paper -- one of which was pseudocode, not Python -- to see how silly this claim sounds. > First, it was published by Microsoft, a company that absolutely has a horse in this race Firstly, this is evidence that you are neither very familiar with Microsoft, nor with academic or industrial research labs. Microsoft Research (the affiliation of the authors) is practically a different company, and run more like a university lab. It is somewhat deeply insulting to their (often still primarily academic) researchers to suggest that they would publish a misleading puff piece to benefit the commercial arm. Secondly, while the paper describes itself as qualitative, you can reproduce the major claims yourself (and I have).