4 ms·

Nice that someone realized then already it sounds sus https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42128532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42128532

• mmooss 1y ago
  That's not a signal: There always are comments saying the research is suspect.
  • jwilber 1y ago
    Taking a contrarian stance on everything (exactly what you’re doing here) is not a signal. Explaining why research seems sus (what the comment does) is some form (strength proportional to the explanation) of signal.
    • mmooss 1y ago
      > Taking a contrarian stance on everything I pointed out one issue with the GGP. That's not contrarian and not about everything.
      • throwaway290 1y ago
        What was the one issue that you pointed out? That it is somehow NOT nice when someone notices when a paper sounds sus? Or that existence of negative comments is "not a signal" when it clearly is? None of it makes any sense
        • mmooss 1y ago
          It's not hard to parse my short comment. > it is somehow NOT nice Who said that? How could you possibly get that out of my short comment? Are you just making things up? Then what you say also becomes just noise, not a signal. > existence of negative comments is "not a signal" when it clearly is It's clearly not and I demonstrated why. What is your argument against my reasoning? A fundamental of information theory (or decision theory) is that if something gives you the same response every time, it's noise and not signal. If the weather forecaster always predicts it will rain, they aren't 'correct' when it rains; their predictions are just noise. If your coworker criticizes everything you do, their criticisms aren't signals about your work, they are just (annoying) noise. It's no more meaningful than water dripping on a drum.
          • throwaway290 1y ago
            ... It can't be the same every time when the entire comment consists of specifics only concerning one this paper.