Hacker News Reader

Comment by akie | Hacker News Reader

So, basically you're saying: I have only skimmed the article, similar approaches had issues in the past, and my own method from my forthcoming paper is better.

I mean, no disrespect, but that's the core of your argument, yes?

View on HN

It certainly comes across as disrespectful.

To my reading the nature of supervision creating the structure seems to be the core of the argument.

I have issue with the comment because he says he didn't read it, then unfavorably compares it to a previous method, and finally uses that negative review to plug his own article instead. His criticism might be valid, I'm not in a position to judge, but the self-promotion leaves a sour tastes in my mouth and makes me question how much of the criticism is just drummed up to make his own contribution appear more relevant.

to his credit he did say he skimmed the paper, and it's honestly standard practice to do a first pass of skimming a paper before you'd go deeper into reading it anyways

The posted paper does use supervision to find alignments. I need to do a little more math to figure out how well the supervision critique applies, but I think it does. And although the current paper mentions DAS, it fails to discuss recent critiques of supervised abstraction methods (the various citations, including my own, that I provided).

His arguments apply generally to a large family of interpretability methods. Skimming suffices to figure out that the linked article is in that family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com