[parekhnish]

> ... in the era of weapons-grade language models?

Just an aside: Although common perception is that "weapons-grade" refers to the highest quality, in reality it refers to the lowest-possible quality that meets the bare minimum requirements!

[SilasX]

So? That’s what every standard means: “anything just barely over the minimum that the standard specifies”. That can definitely be wonderful and impressive if the standard is high to begin with.

You might as well refer to the bronze medal as “just barely enough to be in the awards ceremony”. Is that supposed to be clever somehow?

[mthoms]

> Is that supposed to be clever somehow?

I thought the parent comment was mildly interesting. There's no need to be so combative.

[SilasX]

Pointing out tautologies that only sound convincing because of misleading phrases, isn't interesting.

[mthoms]

You aren't the gatekeeper of what can and can't be considered interesting.

FWIW, your comment above (about standards) was also mildly interesting to me. I hadn't really given the phrase much thought.

There was no need to be rude about it though.

[SilasX]

I'm not the gatekeeper, no, but I can alert you to when you're being duped by someone parroting nonsense.

[mthoms]

Great! Just try to do it without being condescending (especially when the comment you're replying to is completely innocuous).