4 ms·
They are two researchers/assistant professors working with cognitive science, psychology, and trustworthy AI. The paper is peer reviewed and has been accepted f
by JohnKemeny 2y ago
They are two researchers/assistant professors working with cognitive science, psychology, and trustworthy AI. The paper is peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Language Sciences.
You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal.
P.s. if you find any grave mistakes, you can contact the editor in chief, who happens to be a linguist.
- kazinator 2y ago> You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal. No thanks; that would be at least twice removed from Making Stuff. (Once removed is writing about Making Stuff.)
- lgas 2y agoOne might argue that a critique itself is stuff.
- lucianbr 2y agoAn appeal to authority if ever there was one. Their critique is written here, in plain english. Any fault with it you can just mention. The "I won't read your comment unless you get X journal to publish it" seems really counterproductive. Presumably even the great Journal of Language Sciences is not above making mistakes or publishing things that are not perfect.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago>> An appeal to authority if ever there was one. I read it as a clear refutation of the assertion that the authors "have no connection" to AI (or to AI hype; unclear from the OP). Btw, the OP is a typical ad-hominem, drawing attention to who is speaking rather than what they're saying.
- mquander 2y agoThe "efficient journal hypothesis" -- if something is written in a paper in a journal, then it's impossible for anyone to know any better, since if they knew better, they would already have published the correction in a journal.