- report benchmark that conveniently omits well known SOTAs, 20 points

- conveniently omit well known benchmarks because not SOTA, 30 points

- change one tiny term in GRPO and call it a completely different acronym, 50 points

- try to slide in a systems hack and but title your paper as though it is a model improvement, 100 points (prizes to the first replier who figures out which recent paper i am subtweeting here)

- forbes 30 under 30, 100 points

I call upon this body to draw up a spreadsheet of some popular AI marketing and their scores.

-10 points if you actually read your marketing yourself before copy and pasting it on the website

I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.

Could not care less about AI, but this font is amazing.

The list avoids many of the real sins and has plenty of mis-analysis, for instance,

   20 points for doing the usual motte-and-bailey or hedging in the form of “It is not X. It is Y.”

I mean, that language pattern is often appropriate but for people who are paying attention today it is a sign of... something.

I mean, I am tired of Copilot giving answers like "You're not a fur, you're a therianthrope" It is really a tracer, I think, for someone for whom the lights are on and nobody is home, like they want to be a top blogger about AI but they haven't caught on that the "It's not X, it's Y" pattern is a tell.

A similar BS is also every CEO claiming AI made their company 10x faster yet GDP trends not really budging

[dead]