On: Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everyt...

[loa_in_]

This comment is inflammatory, how is it at the top? Statements saying we're doing it wrong are either revolutionary or misinformed, and I don't see that it's obvious either way

[taneq → loa_in_]

I thought it was a reasonable response to an inflammatory position. If you think you've discovered a new approach that works better than the current ones, you can announce it without dismissing an entire discipline as hopelessly ineffective.

[xtiansimon → taneq]

I read the article (once) and didn’t encounter this passage nor much criticism in general.

Most of the article outlines in a positive way the annealing idea and it’s related extents.

Inflammatory ‘comment’, sure, but hardly a main theme for the article.

[mannykannot → loa_in_]

It will not be obvious for some while whether the author is revolutionary or misinformed, but, historically, revolutions have usually depended on painstaking groundwork of the sort the author disparages in this statement. The discovery of gravity built on painstaking and thorough astrometry, and the discovery of evolution built on painstaking and thorough taxonomy. In neither case could it justifiably be said that these precursors "couldn’t possibly generate insight about the things we care about."