Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your original statement was that having a couple of failures brings into question its claims about performance. It doesn't because it doesn't claim such high performance. 99.31% is lower than perhaps 997 out of 1000 or whatever the GP tested. Of course having unpredictable failures is a worry but it's a different worry.
They uploaded 3 sample files for the authors, there were more failures than that, and the failures that GP and others have experienced are of a less tolerable nature. This is the point I was making, that the value added by classifying files with no rigid structure is offset heavily by its unpredictable shortcomings and difficult-to-detect failure modes. If you have a point of your own to make I'd prefer you jump to i…
Re: Magika: AI powered fast and efficient file type identification
#261The point I'm making is that you drew a conclusion based on insufficient information, apparently by making assumptions about the distribution of failures or the definition of "easy".