It's not only the sloppy review process but a lot of AI papers just contain prose and vague descriptions. One might argue that acceptance is based on in-group background knowledge and I feel that's often signalled. Paper by DeepMind AI (who are not that innocent re that!):
arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09238

IEEE journals are full of blurry diagrams and pixelated formulas. It's amazing that "engineers" cannot even create vector graphics. Below not just blurry but a summation node with no outputs but 3 inputs!
bsky.app/profile/bern...

In my engineering bubble it's this endless vacuous bullshit of "I'm delighted to have been promoted to regional sub chair of IEEE for south Glasgow" or "I'm delighted to show in this paper that simulating two digital twins talking to each other in MATLAB will make sure we'll reach net-zero."

Never had this before: the classifier is a function.

So that's all what they tell us about their ML model. Totally explainable. 🥳

..and the so called graphs also because they are all terribly blurry. Looks like they took their mobile phone and took a photo of excel.

I will never tire of these wonderful comics about Ada Lovelace (and Charles Babbage] from Sydney Padua

sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/co...

It also make sure that they will never bother to settle so that then a couple of years down they line she can say: "See, they don't integrate. Get rid of them!"