|
|
|
|
|
|
by 7532yahoogmail
2190 days ago
|
|
|
I do not object to publishing a better result. Like the paper said serious craft goes into that and there's nothing wrong with typing it up and having it published. But it's not science; one day one time some how some way the black boxes have got to open up to address why. This is a very valid question and on point criticism. Even in basic software development why (eg requirements) should be known. It's not consequence free free to proceed otherwise. |
|
|
That's just not true. We are probing a novel domain.
In fact how else would you expect this to proceed? We've discovered a new phenomenon, which likely requires novel mathematics, yet through this exact kind of experimentation we are building the intuition that will guide more rigorous formalization later.
Sure, I get it, the quality on arxiv isn't the same as some physics journal; but to dismiss this as unscientific is not only wrong but very much unfair. I'm working the cutting edge at work, and we're documenting our discoveries as we map the structure of a new frontier - if that isn't science, I don't know what is.
tldr this is how science progresses in new domains before novel mathematics and formalisms are developed to address the new class of problems. This is a really exciting time if neural nets don't hit any serious blocks.
Edit: and by the way, my coworkers are all graduated educated scientists from various backgrounds. What else are they doing if not science?