I don't think its that surprising actually. And I think the paper in general completely oversells the idea.

The ResNet results hold from scratch because strict local constraints (e.g., 3x3 convolutions) force the emergence of fundamental signal-processing features (Gabor/Laplacian filters) regardless of the dataset. The architecture itself enforces the subspace.

The Transformer/ViT results rely on fine-tunes because of permutation symmetry. If you trained two ViTs from scratch, "Attention Head 4" in Model A might be functionally identical to "Head 7" in Model B, but mathematically orthogonal.

Because the authors' method (SVD) lacks a neuron-alignment step, scratch-trained ViTs would not look aligned. They had to use pre-trained models to ensure the weights shared a coordinate system. Effectively, I think that they proved that CNNs converge due to it's arch, but for Transformers, they mostly just confirmed that fine-tuning doesn't drift far from the parent model.

Thank you for saving me a skim

You’ve explained this in plain and simple language far more directly than the linked study. Score yet another point for the theory that academic papers are deliberately written to be obtuse to laypeople rather than striving for accessibility.

Vote for the Party that promises academic grants for people that write 1k character long forum posts for the laypeople instead of other experts of the field.

I’m not sure that’s something we get to vote on.

On the margin, you can let anything influence your voting decision.

File under "technically true but not particularly useful"

Well, it's not like voting is particularly useful in the first place.

I don't think the parent post is complaining that academics are writing proposals (e.g as opposed to people with common sense). Instead, it seems to me that he is complaining that academics are writing proposals and papers to impress funding committees and journal editors, and to some extend to increase their own clout among their peers. Instead of writing to communicate clearly and honestly to their peers, or occasionally to laymen.

And this critique is likely not aimed at academics so much as the systems and incentives of academia. This is partially on the parties managing grants (caring much more about impact and visibility than actually moving science forwards, which means everyone is scrounging for or lying about low hanging fruit). It is partially on those who set (or rather maintain) the culture at academic institutions of gathering clout by getting 'impactful' publications. And those who manage journals also share blame, by trying to defend their moat, very much hamming up "high impact", and aggressively rent-seeking.

Yes, thank you, exactly. It’s a culture and systems issue. Thank you for clarifying a post I wrote in the early morning while waiting for my baby to fall back to sleep!

and hope for a president that can do both

We have this already. It's called an abstract. Some do it better than others.

Perhaps we need to revisit the concept and have a narrow abstract and a lay abstract, given how niche science has become.

I think its very surprising, although I would like the paper to show more experiments (they already have a lot, i know).

The ViT models are never really trained from scratch - they are always finetuned as they require large amounts of data to converge nicely. The pretraining just provides a nice initialization. Why would one expect two ViT's finetuned on two different things - image and text classification end up in the same subspace as they show? I think this is groundbreaking.

I don't really agree with the drift far from the parent model idea. I think they drift pretty far in terms of their norms. Even the small LoRA adapters drift pretty far from the base model.