All I can say is I very much disagree, and if I had authored the post and it had received the reaction from people that it has I would be anxious to issue corrections. I haven't reviewed for conferences for several years now, but I wouldn't have thought this should pass review.

I believe the post definitely plays off the implication that the Qwen experiments are connected to the experiments that read the raw weights and have no Python harness, when this isn't the case. There are experiments where Astra reads weights directly for very simple models, and there are experiments where Astra performs ML research tasks by analysing the problem and writing Python code. The authors imply that the same technique underlies these but that isn't the case.

I think this is quite like proper science. They made a claim, we are scrutinizing it. All is cool from my point of view.

I mean separating two paragraphs by "Likewise" is pretty much how an author communicates to a reader to follow the barely-hidden line of reasoning.

Link?