Yeah, this explains why this cryptography paper was published in a ML conference. Any reasonable reviewer would reject this as not providing sufficient security.
It's pretty upfront about being a novelty project done by a self-described non-crypto expert, and I don't see any assertions of it guaranteeing any degree of sufficiency/security or claiming any such NextBigThing(TM) hype.
Just because a paper is published doesn't mean it wasn't done for fun/the hell of it.
Just because a paper is published doesn't mean it wasn't done for fun/the hell of it.