This is a nice counter example against my arguments for arXiv.
The situation is following, in thread:
1) relatively small group gets the ideas of AE+ViT=SiT, validates on CIFAR, STL,puts on arXiv in April. Also submits to PAMI
1/
https://twitter.com/atito_sara/status/1459878452568461314?t=iyuPpTRrPDy-P4pD07YXIQ&s=19
The situation is following, in thread:
1) relatively small group gets the ideas of AE+ViT=SiT, validates on CIFAR, STL,puts on arXiv in April. Also submits to PAMI
1/
2) AK posts about SiT
3) Masked AE + ViT from Meta AI, comes out in November, gets nice ImageNet results and get all attention. Not citing SiT
So arXiv does not protect SiT from scooping.
Oh, and PAMI rejects SiT
2/
https://mobile.twitter.com/ak92501/status/1380322070073118722
3) Masked AE + ViT from Meta AI, comes out in November, gets nice ImageNet results and get all attention. Not citing SiT
So arXiv does not protect SiT from scooping.
Oh, and PAMI rejects SiT
2/
However, arXiv + social media allow us to at least have this conversation and maybe fix a credit assignment.
Without arXiv as a proof of work, and social media to point out the situation, complete scooping.
3/
Without arXiv as a proof of work, and social media to point out the situation, complete scooping.
3/
Do I believe that it is a bad play from MetaAI? No. Their paper is quite different and the idea is simple enough to many people to try it.
Do I believe that ImageNet experiment is important - also yes.
Let's see what is next.
4/4
Do I believe that ImageNet experiment is important - also yes.
Let's see what is next.
4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
