7 ms·

Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to

Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to solution correctness. My solutions work and they speak for themselves.

bryan0 27d ago
I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.
newswasboring 27d ago
> My solutions work and they speak for themselves. I understand the sentiment, and I also use the "thinking" traces as insight, but wouldn't you want your solutions to be based upon a good understanding? If the correlation is weak, then our solution is also weak.
aaraujo002 27d ago
This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community. From [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]" [1] https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers
- hellohello2 27d ago
  Sure, and the parent comment's position is that they dislike it. Its purpose is to advocate against clickbait titles becoming normalized in the scientific community.
  - mpalmer 27d ago
    This is the opposite of clickbait. The topic is obvious from the title.
    - hellohello2 27d ago
      Clickbait doesn't have to be false, it has to be shocking. Being false is one way of being shocking. "Stop doing X!" -- really now?
dgellow 27d ago
A paper title is marketing, you’re expected to read its content
throw310822 27d ago
I admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove them and save a lot of time and money. There's a lot of money to be made by doing so. So why are they there at all? What do they represent?

bryan0 27d ago

I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.

newswasboring 27d ago

> My solutions work and they speak for themselves. I understand the sentiment, and I also use the "thinking" traces as insight, but wouldn't you want your solutions to be based upon a good understanding? If the correlation is weak, then our solution is also weak.

aaraujo002 27d ago

This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community. From [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]" [1] https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers

hellohello2 27d ago
Sure, and the parent comment's position is that they dislike it. Its purpose is to advocate against clickbait titles becoming normalized in the scientific community.
- mpalmer 27d ago
  This is the opposite of clickbait. The topic is obvious from the title.
  - hellohello2 27d ago
    Clickbait doesn't have to be false, it has to be shocking. Being false is one way of being shocking. "Stop doing X!" -- really now?

dgellow 27d ago

A paper title is marketing, you’re expected to read its content

throw310822 27d ago

I admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove them and save a lot of time and money. There's a lot of money to be made by doing so. So why are they there at all? What do they represent?