[yunohn]

I would’ve taken this response more seriously if it weren’t written with LLM assistance.

Regardless, it’s a lot of words to again say “they are famous, so consider them more seriously” despite the obvious scam being perpetuated via crypto. The appeal to authority is you stating their credentials first, and none of the deductions you claim one should make from merit.

[threethirtytwo]

It wasn’t LLM assisted. That accusation is just a way to avoid dealing with the point.

You keep restating a position no one is taking. No one said “they’re famous, therefore right.” That’s something you invented so you don’t have to argue against what was actually said.

Credentials don’t make an argument true. They explain why an opinion isn’t noise. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you principled, it just makes you incurious.

If there’s an obvious scam, spell it out. If the reasoning is flawed, point to the step where it fails. You haven’t done either.

So far all you’ve contributed is tone policing, motive guessing, and now AI paranoia.

[yunohn]

Your position was much worse - instead you’re devaluing the original post author’s opinion because they don’t have the credentials of the person you’re comparing them to.

All your replies have severe clear AI slop smell, you’re not giving me any reason not to assume otherwise tbh. It’s more about whether you respect my replies to formulate your own answer, but given your appeal to authority, clearly you have no qualms allowing others (senior engineers, AI/LLMs) to determine them for you!

[threethirtytwo]

You’re doing that thing where you confuse confidence with thinking.

You haven’t engaged with the argument once. You’ve complained about credentials, then tone, then AI, then “respect.” That’s four pivots and zero substance.

I didn’t say “trust this person instead of thinking.” I said experience adds context. You keep pretending those are the same thing because otherwise you’d have to actually respond.

The AI accusation is just embarrassing. It’s the online version of “I can’t refute this, so I’ll imply you cheated.” That might feel clever, but it mostly signals panic.

If you’re as sharp as you seem to think you are, this shouldn’t be hard. Pick a claim. Explain why it’s wrong. Everything else is just noise you’re making to avoid that moment.

[yunohn]

Weirdly enough, your older comments don’t all have AI slop smell - so I have to assume this is some kind of performance art, or a recent shift.

I also wasn’t aware that I’m speaking to someone who actually persistently appeals to authority and maintains a list of figures to bow down to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46783280

As such, this is where I get off this thread train. Seeya!

[threethirtytwo]

“Maintains a list” is a funny invention. I asked a tool to help recall names. You turned that into a personality trait.

What actually happened is pretty obvious. You ran out of things to argue, so you switched to archeology. Scroll history, squint hard, invent a story, declare victory, announce departure.

That move isn’t rare. People do it when they don’t want to admit they’ve hit the end of their reasoning but still want to feel like they left on their own terms.

Confident people don’t need a backstory, a diagnosis, and an exit speech. They make the point and keep talking.

You're just quietly running away and hoping no one noticed.