a cursory sniff test of the abstract reveals greater-than-trace presence of bullshit
I would trust this paper far more if it didn’t trip my “crank” radar so aggressively
Red flags from me:
- “Biologically-inspired,” claiming that this method works just like the brain and therefore should inherit the brain’s capabilities
- Calling their method “B. Dragon Hatchling” without explaining why, or what the B stands for, and not mentioning this again past page 2
- Saying all activations are “sparse and positive”? I get why being sparse could be desirable, but why is all positive desirable?
These are stylistic critiques and not substantive. All of these things could be “stressed grad student under intense pressure to get a tech report out the door” syndrome. But a simpler explanation is that this paper just lacks insight
I would trust this paper far more if it didn’t trip my “crank” radar so aggressively
Red flags from me:
- “Biologically-inspired,” claiming that this method works just like the brain and therefore should inherit the brain’s capabilities
- Calling their method “B. Dragon Hatchling” without explaining why, or what the B stands for, and not mentioning this again past page 2
- Saying all activations are “sparse and positive”? I get why being sparse could be desirable, but why is all positive desirable?
These are stylistic critiques and not substantive. All of these things could be “stressed grad student under intense pressure to get a tech report out the door” syndrome. But a simpler explanation is that this paper just lacks insight