• mint_tamas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Peer review, for all its flaws is a good minimum before a paper is worth taking seriously.

    In your original comment you said tha model collapse can be easily avoided with this technique, which is notably different from it being mitigated. I’m not saying that these findings are not useful, just that you are overselling them a bit with this wording.

    • barsoap
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was someone different who said that. There’s a chance the authors might’ve gotten some claim wrong because their maths and/or methodology is shoddy but it’s a large and diverse set of authors so that’s unlikely. Fraud in CS empirics is generally unheard of, I mean what are you going to do when challenged, claim that the dog ate the program you ran to generate the data? There’s shenanigans about the equivalent of p-hacking especially from papers from commercial actors trying to sell stuff but that’s not the case here, either.

      CS academics generally submit papers to journals more because of publish or perish than the additional value formal peer review offers. It’s on the internet, after all. By all means, if you spot something in the paper that’s wrong then be right on the internet.