[reaperducer]

Immediate distrust of the article… The author might be parroting company marketing, unable to discern that a lot of this is much less complex than it seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/by/dustin-volz

> I am based in The Times’s Washington bureau, and much of my focus is on the dealings of U.S. cybersecurity and intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their counterparts abroad, chiefly in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

> My remit spans nation-state hacking conflict, digital espionage, online influence operations, election meddling, government surveillance, malicious use of A.I. tools and other related topics.

> Before joining The Times, I worked at The Wall Street Journal, where I spent eight years covering cyber conflict and intelligence. My recent work at The Journal included a series of articles revealing a major Chinese intrusion of America’s telecommunications networks that breached the F.B.I.’s wiretap systems and has been described as one of the worst U.S. counterintelligence failures in history. I have also worked at Reuters and National Journal, where I began my career in Washington chronicling congressional efforts to reform surveillance practices at the N.S.A. in the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures.

> My work has been internationally recognized, including by the White House Correspondents’ Association, the Gerald Loeb Awards, the Society of Publishers in Asia and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing.

What have you done lately?

[kubik369]

Your comment was surely well meant, but you could have plainly stated that the article author is a seasoned reporter instead of the snarky reply.

GP might be incorrect in stating that the author is parroting Anthropic's marketing, but the author certainly does not go out of his way to specify that these are only Anthropic's claims. It is actually a bit ironic as the article linked[0] from the quoted part (by another author) uses the correct phrasing when dealing with such claims:

> Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company that recently fought the Pentagon over the use of its technology, has built a new A.I. model that it claims is too powerful to be released to the public.

[0] https://archive.ph/GC6WP#selection-4713.0-4713.200

[LPisGood]

> What have you done lately?

I feel like this website is a particularly dangerous place to ask that and hope it to be a “mic drop” moment. There are a lot of highly accomplished engineers, scientists, founders CEOs, etc. here that could easily respond to that with any manner of impressive qualifications.

[esafak]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079

[ozozozd]

Lately I’ve been trying to think critically. I am not perfect, but I can recognize appeal to authority from a mile away.

> An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. The argument from authority is often considered a logical fallacy and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.

[ShinyLeftPad]

> there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible - historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument

> Some consider it a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real, pertinent, and universally accepted

Anyway, other than trying to think critically, anything?

[LudwigNagasena]

Reporting on such stuff requires networking skills, not technical knowledge.

[reaperducer]

Reporting on such stuff requires networking skills, not technical knowledge.

Guess how I know you've never been a reporter.

[ofjcihen]

Okay, well I’ve done more than that and I say he’s right. Now what?

[crazygringo]

Your comment would be be fine without the snarky final sentence.

[himata4113]

nytimes reporters have recently been very disappoiting and starting to feel like they're people who managed to become relevant long time ago, but haven't kept up with recent changes and are just parroting things others have said instead of unique thoughts.

[anjel]

I found their recent investigative article on How do stars pee at the Met Gala? to be hard-hitting, yet fair to all sides. [1]

[1] https://archive.is/x9MSO

(You thought I was exaggerating about it being "investigative," dincha.)

[Conscat]

Any media company which deliberately rids itself of everyone willing to speak vaguely positively of transsexual people may not be attracting the most free thinking writers.

[megous]

How many zeroday vulns had the article author discovered using AI assisted methods?

[flextheruler]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...

[reaperducer]

Not at all.

OP posited that the author didn't know what he's talking about. I pointed out that the author has far more knowledge and experience in the field than rando internet griefers on HN who immediately reach for "shoot the messenger" when they read something that doesn't neatly fit into their pre-conceived worldview, instead of perhaps learning things from other people.

But at least your trope acknowledges that he's an authority on the subject.

[nitwit005]

> I pointed out that the author has far more knowledge and experience in the field than rando internet griefers on HN

You mean, you guessed that a random person online lacked experience. The experts are genuinely here too.

[flextheruler]

There's nothing wrong to point that out but to use it as evidence of a truth as if it is a logical argument is the fallacy.

"Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory."

[ssl-3]

> OP posited that the author didn't know what he's talking about.

That position does not appear to be present.

[JumpCrisscross]

Eh, "unable to discern" seems like a polite way of saying someone is talking out of their ass.