Comment by slashdave
2 years ago
Who are "they"? And do you actually believe the practice of publishing unvetted preprints is a good thing in ML research?
2 years ago
Who are "they"? And do you actually believe the practice of publishing unvetted preprints is a good thing in ML research?
Non sequitur? I never said that.
Good venues include main track NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, e.g.
Nature is notorious for publishing PR pieces that don't reproduce, and their ML theory publishing has been quite poor. They do pretty well on things like AlphaGo, materials science, or weather modeling because it's more in their wheelhouse and the results don't require a deep understanding of info theory or ML practice.
Those venues have huge issues with referees. It comes down to who is reviewing the work.
The irony in your comment is that it is related to the paper we are discussing. There is a big problem with poisoning from group-think and self reinforcement in current ML research.