You simply don't know what you're talking about. Your overly cynical take is against Hacker News guidelines.
You have added nothing substantial to this conversation. If you don't have anything substantial to say, then you should stop attempting to simply instigate. Please review the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Have a good day, and please reconsider how you interact with others on this website before telling others to do the same.
I might be feeding the troll here, but building a new LLM architecture is as far from science than building a new bridge architecture is. That is, it might use some jargon and apply some concepts, but it is not scientific. Talking about gaslighting is uncalled for.
> Most scientific research is funded with the hopes of seeing a return of investment.
It is irrelevant, as you so helpfully put yourself. And also, wrong. Most scientific research is funded in the hope of seing applications. Return on investment is at best a secondary objective. You cannot run a research lab and expect to break even in monetary terms.
> You simply don't know what you're talking about. Your overly cynical take is against Hacker News guidelines.
But then, so is your overly aggressive take. So can we please stop for a moment and have a constructive discussion instead of calling each other names?
HN guidelines suggest to take each comment in good faith.
> building a new LLM architecture is as far from science than building a new bridge architecture is. That is, it might use some jargon and apply some concepts, but it is not scientific.
If you would like to make the case as to why, I'm all ears, but simply stating such without stating why is hardly a substantial argument.
> Talking about gaslighting is uncalled for.
You're right, gaslighting is a strong accusation. I should have just pointed out the gatekeeping and left it at that.
> Most scientific research is funded in the hope of seing applications. Return on investment is at best a secondary objective
Again, I should have proofread my comment better and used a positive form such as "much of" or "a lot of", instead of a comparative or superlative form. I didn't intend to make any claims as to the exact ratio of research funded with financial motivation.
> But then, so is your overly aggressive take. So can we please stop for a moment and have a constructive discussion instead of calling each other names?
That's where I disagree. I didn't call OP any names, I do not intentionally engage in ad hominem. Describing behavior is not calling someone names. I'm all for a constructive discussion, and I will consider your critique on my admittedly hastily written comment, but you also need to find it within yourself to take a more charitable and constructive approach, and to not make unsubstantiated claims.