6 ms·

In what way? Given the number of big company name drops, who is it an ad for?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I explained why in the previous submission of this article, this appears to be the work of a PR firm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416420 It's not surprising they added additional sources, but it's likely Google or Facebook's, or even Overstock's, if they're hoping to be viewed on the same tier as Goog and FB. It's pushing AI research buzz, in general, (while containing no actual news) which is pretty valuable to someone like Google, who markets themselves as "an AI company".
- IntronExon 9y ago
  The responses to your assertion seem valid, and given that you don’t know which competing company is being advertised, that seems to support them even more.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    As Graham's article explains, the goal is for your press hit to not look like an ad. I can't be 100% sure who's behind it, but, for example, it fits the classic submarine model if it's Overstock. Note that Graham specifically cites quoting "experts", and down in like third or fourth, you'll see the actual client get dropped. > With trend stories, PR firms usually line up one or more "experts" to talk about the industry generally. In this case we get three: the NPD Group, the creative director of GQ, and a research director at Smith Barney. [5] When you get to the end of the experts, look for the client. And bingo, there it is: The Men's Wearhouse. Google and Facebook could easily be considered "experts" in this field, and Overstock is definitely a place that doesn't come to mind when you think "AI researchers". This little submarine might be trying to plant the idea in peoples' heads that OLabs is a place to consider when they're looking to do AI research. You might not have thought of it before, but you might think of it now. The article wasn't outwardly an ad for them, but it's maybe the only new information it inserted into your brain. The perfect submarine.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      You could be right, but I see a problem in that you could just as easily be wrong. Worse, if I apply your standards to many other articles, I’m capable of obtaining the same ambiguous results.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Many other articles are also submarines. ;)
        IntronExon 9y ago
        Twitch Granted, but it’s the ability to distinguish them from others that seems to be the relatively hard part.
xyzzyz 9y ago
It's called the submarine. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I’m familiar with the article, but that fails to answer what I think was my reasonable question. It’s a bit of an empty thing to just dismiss a piece in the NYT as an ad based on... what?
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    the content
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      You’re the third person without anything like a good answer, in its own way that’s answer enough. Thanks.

I explained why in the previous submission of this article, this appears to be the work of a PR firm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416420 It's not surprising they added additional sources, but it's likely Google or Facebook's, or even Overstock's, if they're hoping to be viewed on the same tier as Goog and FB. It's pushing AI research buzz, in general, (while containing no actual news) which is pretty valuable to someone like Google, who markets themselves as "an AI company".

IntronExon 9y ago
The responses to your assertion seem valid, and given that you don’t know which competing company is being advertised, that seems to support them even more.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  As Graham's article explains, the goal is for your press hit to not look like an ad. I can't be 100% sure who's behind it, but, for example, it fits the classic submarine model if it's Overstock. Note that Graham specifically cites quoting "experts", and down in like third or fourth, you'll see the actual client get dropped. > With trend stories, PR firms usually line up one or more "experts" to talk about the industry generally. In this case we get three: the NPD Group, the creative director of GQ, and a research director at Smith Barney. [5] When you get to the end of the experts, look for the client. And bingo, there it is: The Men's Wearhouse. Google and Facebook could easily be considered "experts" in this field, and Overstock is definitely a place that doesn't come to mind when you think "AI researchers". This little submarine might be trying to plant the idea in peoples' heads that OLabs is a place to consider when they're looking to do AI research. You might not have thought of it before, but you might think of it now. The article wasn't outwardly an ad for them, but it's maybe the only new information it inserted into your brain. The perfect submarine.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    You could be right, but I see a problem in that you could just as easily be wrong. Worse, if I apply your standards to many other articles, I’m capable of obtaining the same ambiguous results.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Many other articles are also submarines. ;)
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Twitch Granted, but it’s the ability to distinguish them from others that seems to be the relatively hard part.

xyzzyz 9y ago

It's called the submarine. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

IntronExon 9y ago
I’m familiar with the article, but that fails to answer what I think was my reasonable question. It’s a bit of an empty thing to just dismiss a piece in the NYT as an ad based on... what?
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  the content
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    You’re the third person without anything like a good answer, in its own way that’s answer enough. Thanks.