Perhaps the term "everybody" is just a figure of speech used in an online title. Can we, should we, forgive HN commenters for making 47,000+ trivially falsifiable claims
How often do HN commenters use the trivially falsifiable term "everybody"
I read the article but found no hint of "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)"
Instead I found a statement that the author finds AI "incredibly" useful:
"An AI summary would have been incredibly useful"
Where, specifically, is the "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)" in this article
The author's point as I understood it is about "AI" _hype_ not "AI" usefulness. The issue she has is with the _people_ who are hyping "AI" and the actual or potential effects of that hype
Comments
"Blanket claims like "Everybody" are trivially falsifiable."
As are claims like "No one" or "99.9%"
How many times per week are such claims made on HN and in similar forums with respect to software and hardware
Perhaps the term "everybody" is just a figure of speech used in an online title. Can we, should we, forgive HN commenters for making 47,000+ trivially falsifiable claimsHow often do HN commenters use the trivially falsifiable term "everybody"
What about the term "99.9%"I read the article but found no hint of "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)"
Instead I found a statement that the author finds AI "incredibly" useful:
"An AI summary would have been incredibly useful"
Where, specifically, is the "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)" in this article
The author's point as I understood it is about "AI" _hype_ not "AI" usefulness. The issue she has is with the _people_ who are hyping "AI" and the actual or potential effects of that hype
(Use quotes around the URLs or escape the ampersands)