Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jfrankle t1_iveolu5 wrote

Oh come on. The author of the Git Re-Basin paper is a scientist acting in good faith based on the results they believe they have observed. Chill out and let the scientific process play out. Nobody here is acting out of malevolence, except maybe you for stirring the pot and putting that author through unnecessary pain. I've been there as a junior scientist getting beaten up on OpenReview. That was bad enough without a live audience on Reddit commenting on it.

13

t0t0t4t4 t1_ivettuk wrote

ICLR is open to public review and he is posted one supported by technical arguments. Are you aware that this is part of the "scientific process" that is accepted by the conference? The authors still have an opportunity to give a response, and then based on that it is the responsibility of the reviewers and the committee members to have an in-depth discussion on the merits of the paper.

If you want to defend the authors, then maybe consider doing that on the technical aspects?

14

ktpr t1_ivoev3k wrote

The scientific process is typically undertaken within context of scientific venues. The authors can not be realistically expected to respond to ICLR and arm chair ml geniuses on the internet. Scientific venues aim to provide minimally acceptable quality control.

1

juliusadml t1_ivgj8ks wrote

Completely agree with your point. It is hard to read this 'rebuttal' as anything but a deliberate attempt to 'sink' this paper at a time when the authors are responding to the reviewers. Now, they also have to respond to a public comment that says that they deliberately over-claimed and rehashed previous ideas. This kind of grievance should've been handled via email.

While it is easy to think that an author is being malicious. Often the honest truth is just that there are *a lot* of papers out there and one might often miss a reference here and there. When these references are pointed out, they can be easily incorporated and more carefully contextualized.

The public comment even went further and replied to each reviewer. They are essentially saying please reject this paper! This level of interference is insane to me. This said, academic 'brand' battles never cease to surprise me.

2

needlzor t1_ivessgu wrote

Misinformation is not necessarily malevolent, it's just misleading or incorrect. Disinformation is deliberately spread false information.

1

jfrankle t1_ivetqzy wrote

It's science. We have no idea what the truth is, and an inherent part of seeking it is that we'll propose ideas that are incomplete or wrong.

−1

apliens t1_ivggkdd wrote

Agreed, I would argue that no paper is free of "misinformation" in the sense described above.

1