This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community.
replyFrom [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]"
Sure, and the parent comment's position is that they dislike it. Its purpose is to advocate against clickbait titles becoming normalized in the scientific community.
replyThis is the opposite of clickbait. The topic is obvious from the title.
replyClickbait doesn't have to be false, it has to be shocking. Being false is one way of being shocking. "Stop doing X!" -- really now?
replyI admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove them and save a lot of time and money. There's a lot of money to be made by doing so. So why are they there at all? What do they represent?
replyA paper title is marketing, you’re expected to read its content
reply> My solutions work and they speak for themselves.
replyI understand the sentiment, and I also use the "thinking" traces as insight, but wouldn't you want your solutions to be based upon a good understanding? If the correlation is weak, then our solution is also weak.
I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.
reply