> they couldn't replicate it because they're idiots
If they did not follow the steps to replicate (pre-training, using less compute, etc.) and then failed, so what's wrong with calling out the flaws in their attempted "replication"?
If they did not follow the steps to replicate (pre-training, using less compute, etc.) and then failed, so what's wrong with calling out the flaws in their attempted "replication"?
Actually, people should criticize flawed papers. That's how science works! When you publish scientific papers, you should expect criticism if there's something that doesn't look right.
The only way to avoid that is to get critical feedback before publishing the paper, and it's not always possible, so then the scientific debate happens in public.
Though, the broader question is how useful the results of the original paper are to other people who might do the same thing.
> It's not a value judgement, just doesn't help his case at all.
Calling it "bullying" looks like a value judgment to me. Am I missing something?
To me, Dean's response is quite sensible, particularly given his claims the other papers made serious mistakes and have potential conflicts of interest.
Second, even a healthy environment can be undermined by lack of skills or resources, intellectual dishonesty, or conflicts of interest.