I see a lot – by no means an overabundance, but enough to “trigger” me – of laughing at some of the “obvious” research that gets posted here.
One example from a week or two ago that’s been rattling around in my head was someone saying in reply to the paper (paraphrased):
That’s just RAG with extra steps.
Exactly. But what were those steps attempting? Did it make RAG better?
Yes. Great, let’s continue pulling the thread.
No. Ok, let’s let others know that pulling this thread in this direction has been tried, and they should take a different approach; maybe it can be pulled in a different direction.
We are at the cusp of a shift in our cultural and technical cultures. Let’s not shame the people sharing their work with the community.
I agree with the sentiment. A contribution is a contribution. Even an utterly failed contribution can have wonderful results when shared.
If, my critiques of the writing quality and content of certain recent papers played a part in this post, I apologize. In my case when I say improvements in ‘transformer kung-fu’ it is my attempt to advertise “we have now exceeded this humans education and understanding”.
All that said. I think some papers are of such a poor and offensive quality, that getting publicly dunked on for it, is a great way to keep liars from stealing grant money/funding from people doing real work. I am already annoyed that when a member from here contributes something, they don’t mention that human, they mention the community. There is no reason a valid contribution shared here, incorporated into an academic or corporate project shouldn’t and couldn’t be credited.
So, I agree with your points and also am probably guilty of the same of the type of comments you speaking out against.
Just another thing I can improve on. Cheers.