[refulgentis]

Frankly, I do, and it comes across as quibbling about categories and trying to define unnecessarily general taxonomic categories, as a reaction to positive reactions to other people.

ex. in the article: "Goodfellow eventually admitted that my PM is adversarial...but emphasized that it's not generative. However, [it] is both adversarial and generative (its generator contains probabilistic units)...It is actually a generalized version of GANs."

When you're at "actually, probabilities means generative, and actually you know what, even my initial claim was too specific: turns out its a generalized version of GANs", all in service of arguing a paper should have been cited in another paper, years after the other paper has been published, there's not much room for sympathy.

[P-NP]

This sounds a bit like a justification of plagiarism. In science, you must cite the original work.