One thing that makes me skeptical is the lack of specific labels on the first two accuracy graphs. They just say it's a "log scale", without giving even a ballpark on the amount of time it took.
Did the 80% accuracy test results take 10 seconds of compute? 10 minutes? 10 hours? 10 days? It's impossible to say with the data they've given us.
The coding section indicates "ten hours to solve six challenging algorithmic problems", but it's not clear to me if that's tied to the graphs at the beginning of the article.
The article contains a lot of facts and figures, which is good! But it doesn't inspire confidence that the authors chose to obfuscate the data in the first two graphs in the article. Maybe I'm wrong, but this reads a lot like they're cherry picking the data that makes them look good, while hiding the data that doesn't look very good.
Did the 80% accuracy test results take 10 seconds of compute? 10 minutes? 10 hours? 10 days? It's impossible to say with the data they've given us.
The coding section indicates "ten hours to solve six challenging algorithmic problems", but it's not clear to me if that's tied to the graphs at the beginning of the article.
The article contains a lot of facts and figures, which is good! But it doesn't inspire confidence that the authors chose to obfuscate the data in the first two graphs in the article. Maybe I'm wrong, but this reads a lot like they're cherry picking the data that makes them look good, while hiding the data that doesn't look very good.