AI Claims Skepticism

I find it shocking that most comments here just accept the article as fact and discuss the implications.The message might not even be wrong. But why is everybody's BS detection on ice in the AI topic space? Come one people, you can all do better than this!Thanks for flagging. Though whenever such a made up thing is flagged, we lose the chance to discuss this (meta) topic. People need to be aware how prevalent this is. By just hiding it every time we notice, we're preventing every

That's a case of not enough skepticism

You're right. I was trying to express an idea that is not easily expressed and did so clumsily. In a more verbose manner, i was thinking that he can't post something like that and not expect some people to be highly sceptical of the validity of his claims.

Agreed. There's a lot of claims that are unsubstantiated as well as full of anecodes. It's hard to discern how this can lead to 'curious' discussion.

There's denialism going on in a variety of posts up above. Please go tell them that.

You’re interpereting it as someone being witty, but consider that people have legitimate concerns and are supplying mountains of concrete evidence for their position.

Seriously, there's a lot of FUD on this thread. Right now it's anecdotal evidence at best that there is a relationship there at all. But most people here seem to be talking about it as if it's already proven fact. Come on HN.

GP is exaggerating, but this thread in particular is really bad.It's healthy to be skeptical, and it's even healthier to be skeptical of openai, but there are commenters who clearly have no idea of what IMO problems are saying that this means nothing somehow?

LOL!It's pretty bloody sad state that we're in that your comment cannot be dismissed as some tin-foil-hat-lunatic, but very reasonable skepticism nowadays.

It's not FUD if the skepticism is valid