Looks like BS. They basically just prompted ChatGPT to churn out a bunch of random architectures that ended up with similar performance. It seems likely that the ones they claim to be "SoTA" just had good numbers due to random variation. ChatGPT probably had a big role in writing the paper, too. The grandiose claims reek of its praise.
Metaphors can get the shape of an idea across quickly, but this use of metaphor isn't used to describe the the paper. It's used to convey the magnitude of their discovery, in their own opinion. Was comparison to others' achievements the most effective and honest way to introduce their work?
It’s probably too early to say (we are having some tempting neural architecture search papers in recent months; this one is on my “to look closer” list).
Anyway, we probably need a link to the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18074
Thanks for the link, will add it to the post. I originally included just the arXiv pdf viewer link for it, not sure what happened for it to be gone
A new paper picking up steam on twitter/X AI discourse, mostly thanks to its absurdly boastful title and abstract. I'm trying to figure out how important the paper is and whether the methodology/results are sound, but it's hard to find good analysis through all the noise.