Amazing how every year since 2014 or so, someone would call DL a bubble or a grift, and yet, here we are: AI keeps getting better, while journalism & editorial standards keep getting lower. I mean, it used to be that journalists had the self-respect to not make up a 'trend' or 'era' before they could cobble together at least 3 anecdotes, and OP can barely even manage 1!
> it used to be that journalists had the self-respect to not make up a 'trend' or 'era' before they could cobble together at least 3 anecdotes
Ironically, these claims could use the support of "at least 3 anecdotes" itself. Granted, this is HN, we are not journalists, that's not part of our standards.
> OP can barely even manage 1
Aside from Pear, TFA also mentioned the Rabbit R1 and the Humane AI pin. Which brings it to a grand total of...three.
Also has the following:
> [TFA] Funding for AI firms reached $23.2 billion in the second quarter of the year—the highest level on record, according to analyst firm CB Insights.
> [TFA] Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google’s AI research team, told the Financial Times earlier this year that he worries that the cash flooding the AI space “brings with it a whole attendant bunch of hype and maybe some grifting.” Hassabis, who cofounded DeepMind, compared the present AI space unfavorably to crypto.
The latter quote was followed by the sentence mentioning Rabbit and Humane.
Honestly, I try to have a healthy amount of cynicism for what counts as "news" nowadays but being critical of a news item for the heck of it strays from the constraints of the operative word "healthy". If I'm being generous, I'd call the article's title sensationalist in its confidence but all things considered, the text provides ample evidence to support the thesis of the title no? We can debate the merits of the evidence the author presented but for us to do that we need to actually---ahem---read the article in good faith and start it from there.
