> you have a lack of understanding in communication, neural nets, or you’re trying to blow things out of proportion for some reason Surely there's a more appro

> you have a lack of understanding in communication, neural nets, or you’re trying to blow things out of proportion for some reason Surely there's a more appropriate way to say that, and a more charitable reading of my comment. As a researcher in the field, I think it's safe to say I understand the models, and maybe I am overly sensitive at people jumping to wrong conclusions because I'm so tired of it. The issue isn't the communication aspect of the analogy, it's the reasoning aspect. For example, people who understand these things say "these work like people" (a useful analogy) and then people who don't understand them say "well if they work like people then they should be legislated like people" (not useful reasoning because the assumption in the "if" was just an analogy). The game of telephone is the danger. You can see lay people in this very thread taking the analogies literally and extrapolating based on literal interpretations of model-brain analogies.