|
|
|
|
|
|
by _8091149529
1963 days ago
|
|
|
Not the person you're replying to, but I admit to characterizing your paper as "garbage" in another comment thread. Since you're inviting discourse, which I greatly appreciate, I'm compelled to reply. 1) To anyone who's studied algebra, it is clear that identities of the form LHS = RHS can be obtained by a nested application of transformations and substitutions in a consistent manner. 2) Of course, arriving at a new, insightful result often involves taking mundane steps. However, in this case, the new mathematical discoveries based on the output tableaus of your algorithm are hypothetical. Whereas the manuscript (and the authors) have already pocketed one of the premium accolades in sciences in the form of a Nature publication. 3) To drive the point above home, do you think the resulting mathematical insights themselves, without riding on the "AI" novelty aspect, would clear the bar for a Nature (or similar high-impact) publication? To be clear, I'm not a mathematican, but I believe the answer would be no. Contrast this with another AI/ML advance published in Nature quite recently: AlphaGo. Note how the gist of their paper, superhuman performance in Go, is a self-standing achievement that merely makes use of machine learning techniques. |
|
|
I would give the actual work behind this paper a "strong accept" if the claims were properly scoped, perhaps with a weak/borderline score on "significance/impact" since I'm not really sure why anyone cares about discovering discovering these sorts of identities. Probably a Conditional Accept in its current form because of the mismatch between actual results + reasonable expectation of potential vs. what's claimed.
So, "over-hyped" and "claims wildly out of line with actual results" are definitely more than fair statements. "Fraud" or "garbage" are way too strong.
Re: Nature, I don't really understand it or care. I can say that in my own input to hiring committees I tend to treat Nature papers in CS/Math as red flags unless they're consolidations of a bunch of other work published in top sub-field journals/conferences.
For some reason Nature really loves these "automated discovery of random mathematical facts" type of papers. I don't understand it. I tend to assume it's click-through-rate-driven editorial decision making.