That is an understandable statement, and probably fair as well I feel.
Much of this comes in reference to statements from fchollet w.r.t. replacing deep learning -- around the time of the initial prize, with a lot of the much more hype marketing, this was essentially the thru-line that was used, and it left a bitter taste in a number of peoples' mouths. W.r.t. misquoting, they did say that we needed something "beyond" deep learning, not "other than" here, and that is on me.
The utility is certainly still present, if I feel diminished, and it probably is a case of my own frustrations due to previous similar issues leading up to the ARC prize.
That being said, I do agree in retrospect that my response skewed from being objective -- it is a benchmark with a mixed history, but that doesn't mean that I should get personally caught up in it.
Much of this comes in reference to statements from fchollet w.r.t. replacing deep learning -- around the time of the initial prize, with a lot of the much more hype marketing, this was essentially the thru-line that was used, and it left a bitter taste in a number of peoples' mouths. W.r.t. misquoting, they did say that we needed something "beyond" deep learning, not "other than" here, and that is on me.
The utility is certainly still present, if I feel diminished, and it probably is a case of my own frustrations due to previous similar issues leading up to the ARC prize.
That being said, I do agree in retrospect that my response skewed from being objective -- it is a benchmark with a mixed history, but that doesn't mean that I should get personally caught up in it.