6 ms·
So, basically you're saying: I have only skimmed the article, similar approaches had issues in the past, and my own method from my forthcoming paper is better.
by akie 15d ago
So, basically you're saying: I have only skimmed the article, similar approaches had issues in the past, and my own method from my forthcoming paper is better.
I mean, no disrespect, but that's the core of your argument, yes?
- Lerc 15d agoIt certainly comes across as disrespectful. To my reading the nature of supervision creating the structure seems to be the core of the argument.
- akie 15d agoI have issue with the comment because he says he didn't read it, then unfavorably compares it to a previous method, and finally uses that negative review to plug his own article instead. His criticism might be valid, I'm not in a position to judge, but the self-promotion leaves a sour tastes in my mouth and makes me question how much of the criticism is just drummed up to make his own contribution appear more relevant.
- cyberclimb 15d agoto his credit he did say he skimmed the paper, and it's honestly standard practice to do a first pass of skimming a paper before you'd go deeper into reading it anyways
- jsrozner 15d agoThe posted paper does use supervision to find alignments. I need to do a little more math to figure out how well the supervision critique applies, but I think it does. And although the current paper mentions DAS, it fails to discuss recent critiques of supervised abstraction methods (the various citations, including my own, that I provided).
- canjobear 15d agoHis arguments apply generally to a large family of interpretability methods. Skimming suffices to figure out that the linked article is in that family.