[kvathupo]

It sucks to criticize, but I concur in the case of the site's article on neural networks [1]. They state that the successes of neural networks "defy mathematical understanding." Universal Approximation Theorem is sufficient; even if you give the benefit of the doubt that they refer to interpretability, there is active and fruitful research into NN saliency. (As an aside, I'm curious how such a quotation got published in PNAS?) It goes on to criticize NNs as not being biologically accurate, misunderstanding the purpose of NNs.

Perhaps this is due to the site relying heavily upon newspaper articles, as opposed to actual research.

[1] - https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/mathematics/neural_networks...

[mdp2021]

The stated aim being «to act as a Catalyst for Curiosity in a general sense – as well as trying to identify possible starting points for (re)cultivating interest in scientific, academic, and of course, armchair-based research [... also as] curiosity does tend to wane significantly as years go by», the ambition is not the most intent and practical.

https://wikenigma.org.uk/curators_rationale