3 comments

  • serioussecurity 1 hour ago
    Wow nature got rolled. Should have stayed closer to their expertise. They were already being hustled by a lot of the applied AI work they were accepting.
    • phildenhoff 1 hour ago
      What’s bad about this paper?
      • serioussecurity 1 hour ago
        Obvious work that is behind state of the art. Not field defining. A reasonable paper to publish at NeurIPS or ICML but very middle of the pack.

        If your paper is accepted to Nature it should be among the top results in your field for the year. This is just fine.

        Edit to clarify: Nature has not been, historically, a venue for pure machine learning papers. It's been a venue for field changing work in the physical sciences. They already have a Machine Intelligence subjournal.

        What this paper shows me is how desperate they are for ML papers, and how poorly their staff understand the field.

  • singularityisne 9 minutes ago
    [flagged]