4 ms·
To say that the 'literature is clear on that' while citing a single paper, which has been rejected from ICLR, is a bit of an overstatement.
by adhi01 1y ago
To say that the 'literature is clear on that' while citing a single paper, which has been rejected from ICLR, is a bit of an overstatement.
- muragekibicho 1y agoThanks for this comment.
- kouteiheika 1y ago> which has been rejected from ICLR Oh, you mean rejected just like these papers? Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space[1], one of the most influential papers in the space with tens of thousands of citations[2]? Or the RoBERTa[3] paper (dramatically improved upon BERT; RoBERTa and derived models currently have tens of millions of downloads on HF and still serve as a reliable industry workhorse)? Or the Mamba paper[4] (pretty much the only alternative to transformers that actually gets used)? Do you want me to keep going? Honestly, I find that whether a paper gets rejected or not means diddly squat considering how broken the review system is, and through how much honestly terrible papers I have to wade through every time I'm looking through the conference submissions for anything good. [1] -- https://openreview.net/forum?id=idpCdOWtqXd60 https://openreview.net/forum?id=idpCdOWtqXd60 [2] -- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7447715766504981253 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7447715766504981253 [3] -- https://openreview.net/forum?id=SyxS0T4tvS https://openreview.net/forum?id=SyxS0T4tvS [4] -- https://openreview.net/forum?id=AL1fq05o7H https://openreview.net/forum?id=AL1fq05o7H
- moralestapia 1y agoBased. This guys knows his stuff.
- p1esk 1y agoEven that paper itself does not provide any "clear" conclusions about which method is better.