You're accusing one of the foundations of modern AI with either being a fraud, or incompetent. At best that seems short sighted, no?
The fact that I argued why I found it bogus based on well established principles, and I get shitted on by people who by all means have provided nothing to this conversation and except suppressing criticism or throwing ad-hominems should tell all about the quality of discourse.
Dismissing criticism, not by arguments, but by the mere name of the person does a disservice to everyone.
If the research can't stand on its own, independent of the author, then it is not good research.
If you can point to _fundamental_ criticism of my arguments, and not fallacies or attacks, I'd be more than happy to discuss them.
With that kind of tonal promise, especially considering the source you are dismissing outright is important in their field, you have to show, not just tell.
If you just left that No out, and gave room for the chance that you are wrong, people wouldn't downvote, they'd upvote. People like to hear smart arguments. No one wants to hear outward dismissal. Especially of known experts.
I could name many other people who have actually been more influential in the field.