I really hope this was an experiment in using gen AI:
“Create a website for a new company that is building the next generation of computing hardware to power AI software. Make sure it sounds science-y but don’t be too specific.”
“Create a website for a new company that is building the next generation of computing hardware to power AI software. Make sure it sounds science-y but don’t be too specific.”
now, it is hard to tell who put effort in at all. read or write.
would you consider your own response to be optimistic or high effort?
* competent and curious engineers
* entrepreneurs, who live on a continuum where one end is...
* ...hucksters and snake-oil purveyors, of which there are plenty, and
* (because this is the Internet) conspiracy theorists and other such loons
and recently
* political provocateurs
You can make a thread work (for that group of people) if it self-selects who reads it. Unfortunately, AI is catnip to all five of these groups, so the average thread quality is exceptionally low – it serves all five groups badly.
Whether some of these people _should_ be served well is a separate question.
binoct's comment is not "pointing out BS" - that requires that you, y'know, actually point out things. binoct's comment is sneering, without any content or thought. Pure fluff.
(before that you were given the chance to object to the estimate, but not to change it.)
Right. A better word is confabulation.
I.e. pseudomemories, a replacement of a gap in information with false information that is not recognized as such.