3 ms·

The AI Marketing BS Index

109 points by speckx 7mo ago

thefz 7mo ago
Could not care less about AI, but this font is amazing.
- metalliqaz 7mo ago
  https://practicaltypography.com/equity.html https://practicaltypography.com/equity.html it looks kind of messy on my 1200p monitor, maybe its better on high res
  - swyx 7mo ago
    agree, its visually interesting but not easy to read
snapcaster 7mo ago
A similar BS is also every CEO claiming AI made their company 10x faster yet GDP trends not really budging
- hluska 7mo ago
  Why would you expect to see speed of software development reflected in the current GDP?
  - rogerrogerr 7mo ago
    Because, allegedly, everyone is writing bespoke software that solves their every need?
  - snapcaster 7mo ago
    If every software company was _actually_ 4-5x or more productive (like CEOs are saying) that should be easily detectable in economic data
kusokurae 7mo ago
I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.
swyx 7mo ago
- report benchmark that conveniently omits well known SOTAs, 20 points - conveniently omit well known benchmarks because not SOTA, 30 points - change one tiny term in GRPO and call it a completely different acronym, 50 points - try to slide in a systems hack and but title your paper as though it is a model improvement, 100 points (prizes to the first replier who figures out which recent paper i am subtweeting here) - forbes 30 under 30, 100 points
- htrp 7mo ago
  fine tune an oss model and call it a groundbreaking innovation -- 20 points
- postsantum 7mo ago
  > forbes 30 under 30, 100 points too far, at this point you go to jail
PaulHoule 7mo ago
The list avoids many of the real sins and has plenty of mis-analysis, for instance, 20 points for doing the usual motte-and-bailey or hedging in the form of “It is not X. It is Y.” I mean, that language pattern is often appropriate but for people who are paying attention today it is a sign of... something. I mean, I am tired of Copilot giving answers like "You're not a fur, you're a therianthrope" It is really a tracer, I think, for someone for whom the lights are on and nobody is home, like they want to be a top blogger about AI but they haven't caught on that the "It's not X, it's Y" pattern is a tell.
vivid242 7mo ago
-10 points if you actually read your marketing yourself before copy and pasting it on the website
djha-skin 7mo ago
I call upon this body to draw up a spreadsheet of some popular AI marketing and their scores.
gbibas 7mo ago
[dead]
n1tro_lab 7mo ago
[flagged]
- convexly 7mo ago
  1000 points if your "proprietary model" is GPT-4 with a system prompt and you call it your "research lab"
  - postsantum 7mo ago
    Research is Science and Science doens't care what you believe!
heresie-dabord 7mo ago
Highlights from the Crackpot Index [1] that inspired TFA: 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. [1] _ https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
argee 7mo ago
The author has gone so far as to link to Motte-and-Bailey fallacy (doctrine?) [0], but after reading it I see no relation to "It's not X, it's Y"? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- justonceokay 7mo ago
  Charitably I think it would go like this: A: We’ve developed the next generation of Artificial Intelligence. B: So this model/product takes more human-like actions or has a more fully-realized world model? A: no AI is a term of art synonymous to large language models. We just made an LLM that uses 10% less RAM. In this case the short version would be “it’s not general intelligence, it’s an LLM”. The reason it’s a motte and bailey is because you have a 100 slide deck implying your product can write the next great American novel—implying the bailey exists.
  - argee 7mo ago
    I thought the author was talking about market positioning [0] E.g. Apple calling Vision Pro a spatial computing headset rather than VR. That didn't quite mesh with the hedging/motte-and-bailey reference. So I suppose they are really trying to say that you overpromise and underdeliver, using weasel wording to cover the difference? I'm not sure I would call even that a motte-and-bailey, but at least it makes more sense than my original interpretation. [0] https://www.aprildunford.com/post/a-product-positioning-exercise https://www.aprildunford.com/post/a-product-positioning-exer...
rapiz 7mo ago
Just for fun. I asked Claude to build an online rater using the rubrics https://yujqiao.github.io/bs-index/ https://yujqiao.github.io/bs-index/

109 points by speckx 7mo ago

thefz 7mo ago

Could not care less about AI, but this font is amazing.

metalliqaz 7mo ago
https://practicaltypography.com/equity.html https://practicaltypography.com/equity.html it looks kind of messy on my 1200p monitor, maybe its better on high res
- swyx 7mo ago
  agree, its visually interesting but not easy to read

snapcaster 7mo ago

A similar BS is also every CEO claiming AI made their company 10x faster yet GDP trends not really budging

hluska 7mo ago
Why would you expect to see speed of software development reflected in the current GDP?
- rogerrogerr 7mo ago
  Because, allegedly, everyone is writing bespoke software that solves their every need?
- snapcaster 7mo ago
  If every software company was _actually_ 4-5x or more productive (like CEOs are saying) that should be easily detectable in economic data

kusokurae 7mo ago

I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.

swyx 7mo ago

- report benchmark that conveniently omits well known SOTAs, 20 points - conveniently omit well known benchmarks because not SOTA, 30 points - change one tiny term in GRPO and call it a completely different acronym, 50 points - try to slide in a systems hack and but title your paper as though it is a model improvement, 100 points (prizes to the first replier who figures out which recent paper i am subtweeting here) - forbes 30 under 30, 100 points

htrp 7mo ago
fine tune an oss model and call it a groundbreaking innovation -- 20 points
postsantum 7mo ago
> forbes 30 under 30, 100 points too far, at this point you go to jail

PaulHoule 7mo ago

The list avoids many of the real sins and has plenty of mis-analysis, for instance, 20 points for doing the usual motte-and-bailey or hedging in the form of “It is not X. It is Y.” I mean, that language pattern is often appropriate but for people who are paying attention today it is a sign of... something. I mean, I am tired of Copilot giving answers like "You're not a fur, you're a therianthrope" It is really a tracer, I think, for someone for whom the lights are on and nobody is home, like they want to be a top blogger about AI but they haven't caught on that the "It's not X, it's Y" pattern is a tell.

vivid242 7mo ago

-10 points if you actually read your marketing yourself before copy and pasting it on the website

djha-skin 7mo ago

I call upon this body to draw up a spreadsheet of some popular AI marketing and their scores.

gbibas 7mo ago

[dead]

n1tro_lab 7mo ago

[flagged]

convexly 7mo ago
1000 points if your "proprietary model" is GPT-4 with a system prompt and you call it your "research lab"
- postsantum 7mo ago
  Research is Science and Science doens't care what you believe!

heresie-dabord 7mo ago

Highlights from the Crackpot Index [1] that inspired TFA: 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. [1] _ https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

argee 7mo ago

The author has gone so far as to link to Motte-and-Bailey fallacy (doctrine?) [0], but after reading it I see no relation to "It's not X, it's Y"? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

justonceokay 7mo ago
Charitably I think it would go like this: A: We’ve developed the next generation of Artificial Intelligence. B: So this model/product takes more human-like actions or has a more fully-realized world model? A: no AI is a term of art synonymous to large language models. We just made an LLM that uses 10% less RAM. In this case the short version would be “it’s not general intelligence, it’s an LLM”. The reason it’s a motte and bailey is because you have a 100 slide deck implying your product can write the next great American novel—implying the bailey exists.
- argee 7mo ago
  I thought the author was talking about market positioning [0] E.g. Apple calling Vision Pro a spatial computing headset rather than VR. That didn't quite mesh with the hedging/motte-and-bailey reference. So I suppose they are really trying to say that you overpromise and underdeliver, using weasel wording to cover the difference? I'm not sure I would call even that a motte-and-bailey, but at least it makes more sense than my original interpretation. [0] https://www.aprildunford.com/post/a-product-positioning-exercise https://www.aprildunford.com/post/a-product-positioning-exer...

rapiz 7mo ago

Just for fun. I asked Claude to build an online rater using the rubrics https://yujqiao.github.io/bs-index/ https://yujqiao.github.io/bs-index/