Why is this relevant when presenting scientific research? Or is the point of your comment to say, they are incentivized to "brand" their research in a way which is attractive to a VC audience?
It's offered as one possible explanation for the tone or style of the language that GP commented on. I don't think their observation applies to ML research at large, this group seems to be more eccentric in their writing (see their history of submissions on HN and their blog more generally)
> Why is this relevant when presenting scientific research?
I’m guessing that the difference lies in the potential value extraction possibilities from the idea.
If comparing the transformers paper to an algorithm or geometry, that is not used by anyone, I think the differences are obvious from this perspective.
However, if that paper on geometry led to something like a new way of doing strained silicon for integrated circuit design that made manufacturing 10 times cheaper and the circuit 10 times faster, then that would be more important then that would the transformers one.
Why is this relevant when presenting scientific research? Or is the point of your comment to say, they are incentivized to "brand" their research in a way which is attractive to a VC audience?
It's offered as one possible explanation for the tone or style of the language that GP commented on. I don't think their observation applies to ML research at large, this group seems to be more eccentric in their writing (see their history of submissions on HN and their blog more generally)
> Why is this relevant when presenting scientific research?
I’m guessing that the difference lies in the potential value extraction possibilities from the idea.
If comparing the transformers paper to an algorithm or geometry, that is not used by anyone, I think the differences are obvious from this perspective.
However, if that paper on geometry led to something like a new way of doing strained silicon for integrated circuit design that made manufacturing 10 times cheaper and the circuit 10 times faster, then that would be more important then that would the transformers one.
> Or is the point of your comment to say, they are incentivized to "brand" their research in a way which is attractive to a VC audience?
Yes
Anyone can be a researcher/scientist if they pass peer review at a reputable journal or conference. That's just how it is.
The bar seems to be much lower than getting a peer reviewed paper published at a reputable outlet
This particular paper is not peer reviewed or published beyond a preprint on arxiv