Simo Ryu @cloneofsimo
I really want to call out examples, but last time I did that I literally got threats based on 'their research networks and future hire rejections' so I decided to not call out names on twitter but to give you couterexamples:
Karras in his paper comes up with (I swear to god) > 4 novel methods and just casually name the paper "Analyzing and Improving"
Another GOATs, "Simple Diffusion", "Scalable Shampoo", "Improving Diffusion Models", "Diffusion Beats Gans"
They just contribute without cringingly renaming and trying to steal previous work's name
[Four screenshots of paper title/abstract pages: (1) Karras et al., NVIDIA/Aalto, "Analyzing and Improving..." diffusion paper, 20 Mar 2024; (2) a diffusion paper abstract with example generated images of a frog, an owl playing piano, and robots; (3) Anil, Gupta, Koren, Singer et al. (Google Research/Tel Aviv/Princeton), "Scalable Shampoo" second-order optimization paper, March 8 2021; (4) Nichol & Dhariwal, "Improved Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models", 18 Feb 2021]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A machine-learning Twitter post complaining about researchers who inflate paper titles/rename existing methods for credit, contrasted with well-known "GOAT" papers that undersell themselves with plain titles. General ML culture commentary, not directly about AI safety.
twittermachine-learningdiffusion-modelsresearch-cultureacademic-norms