4 ms·

I'm not assuming that. In fact, I assumed the opposite and it was after I read most of the comments that it became evident that most people here weren't engagin

by leot 13y ago

I'm not assuming that. In fact, I assumed the opposite and it was after I read most of the comments that it became evident that most people here weren't engaging with the article in any kind of substantive or even remotely sympathetic way (and, believe it or not, good academic reading requires that one adopt the most charitable interpretation of the author's claims -- at least to begin with). And, please don't assume that I don't understand how science or AI theories work, either. If you email me I'd be happy to explain my bonafides.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
You should apply your criticism to yourself. The top ranked commenter now has direct comments about the paper. You are just saying that we should take the paper positively because of the author and venue and you are talking about credentials and not about the content of the paper :)
- leot 13y ago
  Hardly. The words "nonsense" and "gibberish" are being bandied about -- anyone who uses those words for an article that's been reviewed and published in a good journal needs to have strong justification for such derision. No such justification was found. The criticisms sound not that different from politicians who condemn scientists for studying fruit flies and worms. I never said to take the paper positively. Giving something a charitable reading is different from agreeing with it. If I stop on the road and say to you that I think there's gas nearby and ask you where it is, and you say "we're surrounded by nitrogen", then, yes, you have produced a correct parsing of the sentence. But you have not performed a good faith effort to understand what I'm trying to say on my terms. The difference between a superficial reading of a text and a deep dive is obvious, at least to most academics. I had assumed it would also be obvious to the people who frequent this forum.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    AI has been and is always full of such papers. That explains the attitude. People are just tired of snake oil. Note: I am not saying that this is snake oil. If a new theory comes up and it is being reported in the press before anything convincing has been built, it is more efficient to be negative and suspicious. But wait a minute, people here have actually read the paper. Look at the top comments.

by leot 13y ago

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

You should apply your criticism to yourself. The top ranked commenter now has direct comments about the paper. You are just saying that we should take the paper positively because of the author and venue and you are talking about credentials and not about the content of the paper :)

leot 13y ago
Hardly. The words "nonsense" and "gibberish" are being bandied about -- anyone who uses those words for an article that's been reviewed and published in a good journal needs to have strong justification for such derision. No such justification was found. The criticisms sound not that different from politicians who condemn scientists for studying fruit flies and worms. I never said to take the paper positively. Giving something a charitable reading is different from agreeing with it. If I stop on the road and say to you that I think there's gas nearby and ask you where it is, and you say "we're surrounded by nitrogen", then, yes, you have produced a correct parsing of the sentence. But you have not performed a good faith effort to understand what I'm trying to say on my terms. The difference between a superficial reading of a text and a deep dive is obvious, at least to most academics. I had assumed it would also be obvious to the people who frequent this forum.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  AI has been and is always full of such papers. That explains the attitude. People are just tired of snake oil. Note: I am not saying that this is snake oil. If a new theory comes up and it is being reported in the press before anything convincing has been built, it is more efficient to be negative and suspicious. But wait a minute, people here have actually read the paper. Look at the top comments.