3 ms·
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://
by argee 6mo 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 6mo agoCharitably 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 6mo agoI 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...