The paper offers a counterpoint to a published work (Zhang et al., 2021) which together with their earlier unpublished Arxiv version from 2016 has over 7000 citations. If you disagree with this rebuttal, by all means formulate what you find lacking.
> The fact that other people publish crap is irrelevant
You argued that this work is not something that can be seriously be considered to be submitted for publication and cannot be counted as a preprint. It has been pointed out that many works do get submitted to academic venues that aren't up to this quality. You're shifting goalposts.
You are making dismissive remarks without having to state your own view. Do you think Zhang et al's view is correct and deep learning shows novel effects that existing tools can't describe? Do you think the current manuscript does not effectively address those points? You have to argue if you think you have arguments. Labeling something a manifesto or a hot take is just low effort jab. Why do you think that the paper has no chance of acceptance? You are rehashing the same non-argument in different words.
A useful comment would state something like: the authors still do not explain effect X and Y that appears only in deep learning and not in classic ML. Or: the authors' point regarding effect X is incorrect and does not actually show what they claim to show. Etc. Simply saying "it's unserious" can be just turned back at your comment the same way.
> many works do get submitted to academic venues that aren't up to this quality
There's that normative argument rearing its head again. Not interested in jumping off bridges just because your friends do it, thanks.
It is unserious. The thesis amounts to "statistical models like these are mean-field, roughly-max-entropy approximations under the implied data generating process" which is not only an offhand comment a professor might make in ML 201 but tautological on its face. The fact they drag in a couple citations to say as much is besides the point entirely.
> The fact that other people publish crap is irrelevant
You argued that this work is not something that can be seriously be considered to be submitted for publication and cannot be counted as a preprint. It has been pointed out that many works do get submitted to academic venues that aren't up to this quality. You're shifting goalposts.
You are making dismissive remarks without having to state your own view. Do you think Zhang et al's view is correct and deep learning shows novel effects that existing tools can't describe? Do you think the current manuscript does not effectively address those points? You have to argue if you think you have arguments. Labeling something a manifesto or a hot take is just low effort jab. Why do you think that the paper has no chance of acceptance? You are rehashing the same non-argument in different words.
A useful comment would state something like: the authors still do not explain effect X and Y that appears only in deep learning and not in classic ML. Or: the authors' point regarding effect X is incorrect and does not actually show what they claim to show. Etc. Simply saying "it's unserious" can be just turned back at your comment the same way.