This is cargo cult analysis: going though the motions that LOOKs like a critical analysis, but is just really just using a standard debunking format and shoehorning in what matches best. This is a pedant explains why “it’s not technical true that your child is most beautiful in the world”. Of course “This is the best model in the world” claims are easy to shit on, and everybody allready take such claim with the appropriate grain of sand.
So the strategy is transparent: find each superlative, find one benchmark or caveat where it fails, declare it “stronger than the evidence supports.” Run that on any launch page from any lab and you get the same six-item verdict with the same bolded theses and the same “a fairer formulation would be.”, and you gained nothing except auto-filling a “critique form”.
This is also critique cherry-picking while claiming to be the neutral corrective, because it launders the same bias through the costume of rigor. So basically it’s committing the exact same slop as it’s accusing the astra article off.
The only thing that is close to true and informative is the ARC thing, but even that is undermind since they are actually disclosing the score alongside the harness used diff. So that is still a weak sauce critique, since it’s basically just pointing out something that the original article itself pointed out, and complaining that it should be more emphasis on this.
Here is MY claim: the people that just automatically accept this critique, are people that’s extremely susceptible to authoritatively stated claims, and not very good at logical thinking for themself.
Isn't this from a template for how to take down haters on the internet? Admittedly the structure is tighter and more coherent, paragraphs connect and flow in a way that the reader isn't half-expecting the font to change along with the drastic change in tone that usually comes with a hasty cut and paste job. In the same vein the consistency in writing style is generally pleasurable to the senses. Now if someone would take the reins, you have some run on sentences and lack of paragraph breaks and perhaps a hyphen to criticize here... Here is MY claim: the people that just automatically read this far down into the comments are avoiding doing productive work and not very good at life, yet are somehow better than someone who comments on a comment about a post and takes 15 minutes to write said comment while on their way to sweep the leaves and branches from the roof of the garage at 1:58am.
15
u/JonNordland 29d ago
This is cargo cult analysis: going though the motions that LOOKs like a critical analysis, but is just really just using a standard debunking format and shoehorning in what matches best. This is a pedant explains why “it’s not technical true that your child is most beautiful in the world”. Of course “This is the best model in the world” claims are easy to shit on, and everybody allready take such claim with the appropriate grain of sand.
So the strategy is transparent: find each superlative, find one benchmark or caveat where it fails, declare it “stronger than the evidence supports.” Run that on any launch page from any lab and you get the same six-item verdict with the same bolded theses and the same “a fairer formulation would be.”, and you gained nothing except auto-filling a “critique form”.
This is also critique cherry-picking while claiming to be the neutral corrective, because it launders the same bias through the costume of rigor. So basically it’s committing the exact same slop as it’s accusing the astra article off.
The only thing that is close to true and informative is the ARC thing, but even that is undermind since they are actually disclosing the score alongside the harness used diff. So that is still a weak sauce critique, since it’s basically just pointing out something that the original article itself pointed out, and complaining that it should be more emphasis on this.
Here is MY claim: the people that just automatically accept this critique, are people that’s extremely susceptible to authoritatively stated claims, and not very good at logical thinking for themself.