[ggm]

Very hard to critique an article you overwhelmingly agree with!

The key point I kept picking up was the extent to which a press willing to laud a discovery was reticent about owning the clinb-down.

Peer review in ML journals should be tighter maybe? If you solve a limited subset of the three body problem you can't claim to solve "the three body problem" and if you apply a well known Rubik's cube model solution you didn't learn it, you had it baked in.

[currymj]

typically the actual papers are reasonably honest about everything and the misinformation comes in elsewhere, often university press releases summarizing the results.

[buboard]

do most of the hyped papers have peer review even? the field moves too fast for that, press releases are issued as soon as the first draft is on arxiv.

[eanzenberg]

Apologies, but I see a lot of “trash” published in arxiv (also some real good stuff) Peer review could fix some things but would also show some other things down

[madenine]

I like to think of arxiv as the holding area for anything that COULD be peer reviewed.

Advantage is we get to see stuff now, not after it gets accepted at by a conference or journal. Disadvantage, we have to filter on our own.

Twitter and sites like arxiv sanity preserver are helpful for filtering.