zlacker

And the comments section pointed out multiple flaws in that article.

>>andyba+(OP)
it didn't really. There were no fundamental flaws that I could see.

Perhaps the only salient critique was the textual representation of the problem, but I think it was presented in a way where the model was given all the help it could get.

You forget the result of the paper was actually improving the model's performance and still failing to get anywhere near decent results.