|
|
|
|
|
by sillysaurusx
1198 days ago
|
|
That’s my understanding as well. It all depends whether their technique really can do this. If it can, it’s solid work imo. If it can’t (better than random chance), then it’s bunk. There’s not much way to know other than to try it and see. But that’s true of almost every paper in ML. Some of them suck, some of them are great, but they all contribute something in their own way. Even “rat brain flies plane” paper (as much as I despise it) showed that you can change the values of mice neurons in a lab setting. |
|