"An empirical paper that doesn't give a principled reason" is a great description for 99% of machine learning papers since the 1980's. I don't see anyone battin

"An empirical paper that doesn't give a principled reason" is a great description for 99% of machine learning papers since the 1980's. I don't see anyone batting an eyelid e.g. that "Attention is All you Need" or "Language Models are Few Shot Learners" have no theoretical results. Which is to say, I think your criticism is unfair and an attempt to avoid engaging with the arguments in the paper.