The paper had an HN thread a few months ago
replies(2):
Explaining why research seems sus (what the comment does) is some form (strength proportional to the explanation) of signal.
I pointed out one issue with the GGP. That's not contrarian and not about everything.
> it is somehow NOT nice
Who said that? How could you possibly get that out of my short comment? Are you just making things up? Then what you say also becomes just noise, not a signal.
> existence of negative comments is "not a signal" when it clearly is
It's clearly not and I demonstrated why. What is your argument against my reasoning?
A fundamental of information theory (or decision theory) is that if something gives you the same response every time, it's noise and not signal. If the weather forecaster always predicts it will rain, they aren't 'correct' when it rains; their predictions are just noise. If your coworker criticizes everything you do, their criticisms aren't signals about your work, they are just (annoying) noise. It's no more meaningful than water dripping on a drum.
It can't be the same every time when the entire comment consists of specifics only concerning one this paper.