I suppose you can go and shit on people trying to replicate scientific work, and telling them, extremely reductively, “Well your almost as big number isn’t as big, so fuck you,” like a soccer ultra comparing their team’s score of 3 versus the opposing team’s score of 2, as though the only question that matters is “Whose Soccer Team is Best?” Is that even the right question to ask?
People who actually do research, they don’t just look at the absolute comparison of published numbers! Do you think that’s how research is done, by chasing whatever has the biggest number? No repeat innovator does that.
It’s an interesting collision of world views for sure. This is a social media forum for a venture capital firm. They’d hate for anyone to discover that the numbers don’t tell the whole story, that actually everybody starts at zero, and that being second, because of the price premium put on first, is a huge opportunity. So even in some narrow, cynical interpretation, your point of view would lose people a ton of money. But I don’t really know anything about that.
Holy cow, dude. That's not even remotely like what I said. If you read the original paper, they show that GPT-2 does all sorts of cool things. In OP, they show that it's almost as good at one thing on a couple data sets.
It's like if I wrote a paper showing that widgets improve liver health in young men, young women, and adult men. Additionally, widgets make you happy and taller and turn blue. Then you come along and try to replicate my results, showing only that your version of a widget makes young men and women's livers almost as healthy as mine did.
But sure, pretend I said whatever you want to argue against.
People who actually do research, they don’t just look at the absolute comparison of published numbers! Do you think that’s how research is done, by chasing whatever has the biggest number? No repeat innovator does that.
It’s an interesting collision of world views for sure. This is a social media forum for a venture capital firm. They’d hate for anyone to discover that the numbers don’t tell the whole story, that actually everybody starts at zero, and that being second, because of the price premium put on first, is a huge opportunity. So even in some narrow, cynical interpretation, your point of view would lose people a ton of money. But I don’t really know anything about that.