First off: What is your goal here? My comment was one sentence and wasn't specific to this article. Why are you acting like I said things I never said? But okay I'll try to answer.

> What are your thoughts on the other comments in this chain that claim that the references and citations as they are in the linked post are acceptable?

> Why do you disagree with them?

Which comments in particular are you talking about?

And I mean, the post doesn't have "references and citations" plural that I can see. It has one clear reference. I see two comments defending that reference, and a whole bunch of comments saying that a post like this doesn't need references.

I don't need to disagree with any of those comments. My point isn't about whether a post that lacks citations is "acceptable". I was talking about whether a post could add historical citations without losing momentum, so it could do a better job of fitting into context. A dozen notes sprinkled around about when/where different ideas came from, not just the mention at the very end of what decade arithmetic coding is from and the mention of the 2023 paper.

I will say it's bad that the 2023 paper is described as "arguing that language modeling and compression are two views of the same thing", emphasis in the original. That very much makes it sound like a new idea when it isn't.