Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of music into another

Re:Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of ... by yespleasethrow on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:04PM (#17230380)

> Our results present abilities that are, as far as we know, unheard of.

Look, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ridiculous level of salesmanship that authors now feel is necessary to get a paper into NIPS. I can only hope the reviewers might ask the researchers to tone back the crazy hype pitch, but I know better than to expect that.

Presenting things that were previously unheard of... well, that would be what scientific papers are for, aren't they?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of ... by greeneggs on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:15PM (#17230489)

Cut them some slack, it's a joke, a pun.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of ... by yespleasethrow on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:29PM (#17230645)

Ha! It went straight over my head.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of ... by millstone on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:47PM (#17230831)

I thought you were playing off it with "...tone back the crazy hype pitch..."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook made an AI that convincingly turns one style of ... by chmod775 on Monday June 04, 2018 @02:19PM (#17230530)

> Presenting things that were previously unheard of... well, that would be what scientific papers are for, aren't they?

Not really. Just replicating existing findings, summarizing knowledge that would otherwise be spread out across multiple papers, articulating an opinion, or just applying something another paper did in a similar fashion ("I did the same but with blues music!") is a perfectly valid endeavor.

You should however state what your paper contains somewhere at the beginning, which is what they did there - albeit in a "flashy" manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]