[refulgentis]

Flagged, lots of unexplained grandiose thinking like “k and q made the vector the unit of thought.” K and q are unexplained and unlinked and “unit vector of thought” is pseudoscientific language

Extremely likely to be AI, though I’m not sure that matters for rules re: submissions

[dintech]

> “unit vector of thought”

The language and its ideas come from Ken Iverson's famous paper "Notation as a Tool of Thought". This is a common understanding for people in the APL, K/J/Q etc array language communities, who are likely this website and product's intended audience.

[bradrn]

> lots of unexplained grandiose thinking like “ k and q made the vector the unit of thought.”

That much makes sense in context: K is an array language, like APL, J, etc. From what little experience I have with J, ‘vector as a unit of thought’ seems like a reasonable description.

> Extremely likely to be AI

I had the same thought though.

[refulgentis]

That’s fair: The most fair-to-submitter reading of your comment is my concerns are unfounded. If you didn’t intend that, that’s fine.

For moderators, I’d suggest that for the community, it’s spam. That’s one example, there are many more like it. The individual statement may be defensible but is still pseudoscientific language. This sort of content is a massive burden to community. Unanswerable anrguments about AI writing, whether the ability for an individual to have a parse-able reading is the same as writing being parable. The net effect is negative experiences for many and copy-editing for someone who did not do copy editing.

[skruger]

The 'unit of thought' thing is a nod to the Ken Iverson paper on APL that won him the Turing Award ("Notation as a Tool of Thought"), also referenced by Dyalog's tag line "The tool of thought for software solutions"). Variations of that phrase are endemic in the array languages space.

[beng-nl]

I see how jarring it is for you, but I want to comment-vouch against your flag. If you slow down a little, you can spot some meaning there. Its oddly phrased, but it does make sense that vectors (as in: simd vectors) are the building blocks of execution (to put it closer to how I might say it).

I’ve had similar ideas in the past: clearly simd is the way to get the most out of your cpu. Can we design a language where all operations are automatically simd, and it takes effort to do anything in scalars?

And I guess these array languages are what you might get.

It’s not ‘unit vector of thought,’ btw, which is weirder than what it says.

[ofalkaed]

>If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[refulgentis]

Thank you! I'm always finding new rules, even 16 years in :) Much appreciated when it's pointed out.

[hasteg]

I mean, this is perhaps the most vibecoded website possible so... deff AI.

[refulgentis]

It attracts negative energy via unanswerable questions and downvotes if you assert it is, alas.