Hi everyone,

Many thanks a lot for your very interesting article. I have read it carefully, and would
have a few notes:

- First, the main findings seem generally valid in my experience, so it's nice to have them distilled in very clear form.
- However, for the comparison, specifically generation, I
think that it would be have been nice to compare with "state-of-the-art"
 techniques.
- One other variable that could be accounted for in more detail is how much
computation the user is willing to invest into the process. In
CAP (above) you can see that with 50% of the budget used for
finetuning one can reach 80-90% savings almost losslessly. Taking
this to the extreme, our work shows that one can reach highly-accurate networks with low accuracy drops (1-2%) provided enough compute is spent.

Anyway, I am aware that this short "critique" is biased towards my area
(and towards our own work), but I thought it might be useful to have this
perspective as well.

In any case, very nice work, and hopefully see you at the conference!

Cheers,
David