> has claimed that the main techinique behinds o1 is the reinforcement learining.
Typos in the first sentence of the paper doesn't give confidence that I am about to read something worthwhile.
Typos in the first sentence of the paper doesn't give confidence that I am about to read something worthwhile.
In an ideal world would second-language speakers of English proofread assiduously? Of course, yes. But time is finite, and in cases like this, so long as a threshold of comprehensibility is cleared, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the authors and surmise that they spent their limited resources focusing on what's more important. (I'd have a much different opinion if this were marketing copy instead of a research paper, of course.)
Two of the authors are from "Shanghai AI Labs" rather than students, so one might hope it had at least been proofread and passed some sort of muster.
Not dismissing work for trivially avoidable mistakes risks wasting your precious, limited lifespan investing effort into nonsense. These signals are useful and important. If they couldn't be bothered to proofread, what else couldn't they be bothered to do?
>spent their limited resources focusing on what's more important
Showing that you give a crap is important, and it takes seconds to run through a spell checker.