[MichaelZuo]

If they’re not credible… then why would any one care…?

Readers are just going to assume it’s random noise, or at least indistinguishable from noise, from a rando on the internet.

[andrewflnr]

That's equally true of all internet comments. None of us here on HN have or are claiming automatic credibility. We just make arguments that make sense to us. Feel free to close the tab if you don't find any value in this activity.

[MichaelZuo]

So then what makes your opinions “hypotheses”?

Sufficient chimpanzees with keyboards, or an LLM, can also type out every comment you’ve ever written, including the last few.

[andrewflnr]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

[MichaelZuo]

I clearly don’t think your opinions match the definition found in merriam webster… or else I wouldn’t have asked.

[swiftcoder]

You don't think his comment is "an assumption put forward for the purposes of discussion"? That seems a fairly low and generic bar for a comment to reach...

[andrewflnr]

Truthfully, I hold those ideas a little more confidently than purely "for the purposes of discussion", but I suspect you at least understand that the real-world usage of "hypothesis" is quite broad.

I'm kind of tickled at the idea that a "hypothesis" is some hyper-specific thing with trappings of "credibility", and that anything less would be an insult, like we're not all just a bunch of nerds arguing on the internet. It's also kind of sad, though. This is why computer people need liberal arts education.

[MichaelZuo]

I don’t think the parent meant that interpretation, as that would also apply to the output of sufficient chimpanzees bashing keyboard and LLMs too…

Which would be practically meaningless without some attached non-zero credibility.