Very impressive results I would say. Link to paper:
https://research.nvidia.com/labs/rtr/neural_appearance_model...
Similar one, about texture compression:
https://research.nvidia.com/publication/2023-08_random-acces...
I hope to see more and more bizarre ways of picking the author order on these kind of papers.
> equal contribution, three of the authors are the real authors, the other seven names were generated by an AI
> Order of authorship was determined by the top score each person received across all three levels of the official Pottermore “Back to Hogwarts Quiz.” For information about the exact scores (and houses), please contact the authors.
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3...
For a while, [StackExchange.Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) (like StackOverflow, but for questions about academic life) seemed to be getting a lot of questions about the meaning of author-order, where it seemed to vary across fields and even then be prone to subjective interpretation based on unstated rules. It was a very silly situation, made sillier by the fact that those doing it seemed to be under the misimpression that it was the serious, respectable way of conveying authors' relative contributions.
Of course, their particular approach to doing this does leave open one potential avenue for confusion. In particular, are they doing this because:
1. they're researchers who want to stress that the name-ordering is arbitrary in a humorous way; or
2. they're hardcore rock-paper-scissors competitors who were primarily motivated by a desire to better advertise the results of their tournament?
(Though, in the spirit of being clear-and-explicit, I'm just kidding about that last part!)
This still has to be bridged with compressed texture representations (and compressed model representations) but I think that's not too far away.