As I periodically read scientific papers on my topic, I will try to articulate the levels of understanding the truth.
Level 0: “Read Later Folder” Downloaded the PDF, the title sounds genius, the abstract seems like the solution to all my problems. The file is forever buried in the ~/Downloads/Papers/ToRead folder.
Level 1: “Sumerian Cuneiform” Don’t understand anything at all. Random symbols, the Greek alphabet is over. “Orthogonal extrapolation of cognitive entropy within a quasi-stationary discourse inevitably induces a bifurcation of transcendental synergism.” Such materials really lower self-esteem. Most often from this level, you either fall back to zero, or gradually move to the second level.
Level 2: “Illusion of Competence” The Abstract is clear, the Introduction reads like a good detective story. But as soon as the main section starts, the text turns into a pumpkin. I can’t paraphrase it in my own words, only in general phrases: “Well, they trained a neural net… kind of.”
Level 3: “Formulas where needed and where not” The Abstract is clear, the first half of the article is also okay (architecture, pictures). But then comes formula (4), where “magic” happens. I take the authors’ word for it that equation (3) leads to (4) because, of course, I won’t check it. Beyond that — sheer horror and belief in a miracle.
Level 4: “Goldfish Effect” While reading — everything is crystal clear. The logic is solid, conclusions are obvious, the authors are smart. I close the tab, someone asks me, “What was the article about?” — and I freeze. My mind goes blank. If you take away the paper, I can’t reproduce even the idea because there essentially isn’t an idea, there is a process.
Level 5: “Armchair Expert” Everything’s clear, I can retell the essence over a beer. I know that Input transforms into Output, but the “black box” inside is still black. Give me a computer, I wouldn’t be able to reproduce even the skeleton because, it turns out, the article lacks half of the important stuff.
Level 6: “Critic-Practitioner” Everything is clear, I can recount, understand how to reproduce (even without their code). I see where they cut corners. I definitely know that the “state-of-the-art” result is achieved only thanks to a lucky seed or dataset and this strange trick in preprocessing, mentioned in the footnote on page 12.
Level 7: “Deconstructor” Hooray, I’ve understood everything and implemented it myself. It works worse than in the article, but I know why. However, I understand this work better than the second author (who just made charts). I see that all this complex mathematics over 5 pages boils down to two paragraphs in the middle.
Level 8: “Nirvana” The article is trivial. The idea is secondary, it was all in the ’90s with Schmidhuber, just named differently. Formulas are overcomplicated for importance. I can write the same in 10 lines of code and it will work faster. Reject.
If anything — I’m stuck somewhere between 2 and 4.
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 