> Direct comparisons from the last 3 years show that AlphaChip is worse.
Do you have any evidence to claim this? The whole point of this thread is that the direct comparisons might have been insufficient, and even the author of "The Saga" article who's biased against the AlphaChip work agreed.
> Granted, Google is belittling these comparisons, but that's what you'd expect.
This kind of language doesn't help any position you want to advocate.
About "the potential to disrupt", a potential is a potential. It's an initial work. What I find interesting is that people are so eager to assert that it's a dead-end without sufficient exploration.
Do you have any evidence to claim this? The whole point of this thread is that the direct comparisons might have been insufficient, and even the author of "The Saga" article who's biased against the AlphaChip work agreed.
> Granted, Google is belittling these comparisons, but that's what you'd expect.
This kind of language doesn't help any position you want to advocate.
About "the potential to disrupt", a potential is a potential. It's an initial work. What I find interesting is that people are so eager to assert that it's a dead-end without sufficient exploration.