|
|
|
|
|
by Terretta
960 days ago
|
|
Having read the whole article I wanted to reply but know most of HN would not, so needed a recap to reply to you. Yes, recap was by Claude 2 100k because it's a long article and it types faster than I do. :-) Now: > What creates the incentive so that one group become larger than the other? things do not happen in a vaccum, only in this paper I guess. or "endogenously" which might be their code word for "i don't want to investigate who paid for this". You don't need conspiracy to explain the "endogenous" results of democratic processes. They go like this. > Now, the question I wanted to pose is: why 4 papers in this month alone held this obviously flawed argument, using wikipedia NPOV case as their case study? Because (a) like 12 people work in academia and they're all at the same conference, and (b) how tenure works. It's not a conspiracy so much as a "that guy talking about that idea by the punchbowl is going to get credit, I should do that and also get credit" lack of creativity. I think I also used the word "groupthink" above. |
|