1) Yoshua's reputation would take a hit if this paper were bullshit, so he has extrinsic motivation to make it good
2) Yoshua has enough experience in the field to know what is going on in the field, you don't have to ask if he forgot about a certain architecture or the work of a certain research group which would contradict his findings-- if such work exists and is credible, it is very likely to be discussed in the paper.
3) This test answers something a leader in the field thinks is important enough for them to work on, else he wouldn't be involved.
Also note, the poster said the paper shouldn't be taken lightly. That doesn't mean we need to take it blindly. It only means we cannot dismiss it out of hand, if we have a different view we would need substantive arguments to defend our view.
I've overturned the field leader several times in science, but that's only because I acknowledged what they got right and that they were indeed the person who got it right.
> It only means we cannot dismiss it out of hand, if we have a different view we would need substantive arguments to defend our view.
You will need to do that anyway, no matter if Yoshua is on the paper, or not. I understand that people have limited bandwidth, and so they need shortcuts, and they need to justify these shortcuts to themselves somehow (of course the justifications are nonsense). Maybe AI will help here.
“ I've overturned the field leader several times in science”
Either that makes you a field leader yourself, or you did it for trivial things, or you’re BSing. Which one is it?
there's a big space between leader and trivial. it's entirely possible to point out the top leader in your field is wrong on ten things over a career, without becoming the top leader yourself.
On speculative things or trivial things, sure! On substantive matters (recall: the choice of words is “overturned”), in empirical realms or theory (physics, CS) or math, it’s rather doubtful. Anonymous, self-declared geniuses aren’t to be taken at face value.
