> I might be feeding the troll here HN guidelines suggest to take each comment in good faith. > building a new LLM architecture is as far from science than bu

> I might be feeding the troll here HN guidelines suggest to take each comment in good faith. > building a new LLM architecture is as far from science than building a new bridge architecture is. That is, it might use some jargon and apply some concepts, but it is not scientific. If you would like to make the case as to why, I'm all ears, but simply stating such without stating why is hardly a substantial argument. > Talking about gaslighting is uncalled for. You're right, gaslighting is a strong accusation. I should have just pointed out the gatekeeping and left it at that. > Most scientific research is funded in the hope of seing applications. Return on investment is at best a secondary objective Again, I should have proofread my comment better and used a positive form such as "much of" or "a lot of", instead of a comparative or superlative form. I didn't intend to make any claims as to the exact ratio of research funded with financial motivation. > But then, so is your overly aggressive take. So can we please stop for a moment and have a constructive discussion instead of calling each other names? That's where I disagree. I didn't call OP any names, I do not intentionally engage in ad hominem. Describing behavior is not calling someone names. I'm all for a constructive discussion, and I will consider your critique on my admittedly hastily written comment, but you also need to find it within yourself to take a more charitable and constructive approach, and to not make unsubstantiated claims.