Yep. They‘re putting out what they call huge breakthroughs on a weekly basis for months and make headlines. By the time they have been put into perspective or straight out debunked and torn to shreds by the global scientific community, they already squeezed out another wild claim to overshadow criticism. Rinse and repeat. There is a reason the overwhelming majority of AI generated slob studies come from China. They want fast results and know the press won‘t really read them and instead just quote whatever they claim.
Skepticism of positive press (aka propaganda) from a country notorious for cracking down on negative press (i.e. any mention of Tiananmen Square) is not a phobia. It’s completely justified.
The discussion was about the unreliability of Chinese propaganda. You moved to funding scientific research. You didn’t just move the goalpost a bit. You relocated it to a different city.
No. If true, the achievements are achievements. Actual achievements aren’t propaganda. However, the claims of the alleged achievements are coming from a country notorious for whitewashing history and making claims of scientific discoveries that later turn out to be optimistic at best, and often complete fabrications. So, skepticism of their claims of achievements (aka propaganda) is justified.
And that’s what this thread, that I started, is about. Responding to a post about some alleged scientific breakthrough, stating that such claims should be taken with a big grain of salt (aka, skepticism).
YOU then moved the goalpost to try to argue about whether increased funding for scientific research leads to better results. We don’t know that these results actually happened. We don’t know that there was actually any increase in funding. All we know is that a notorious liar is claiming so. This thread was never about whether funding scientific research can lead to discoveries. It’s about claims of discoveries from China are not reliable.
and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
And that’s when you moved the goalpost, likely because you don’t want to discuss China’s history of lies and propaganda.
Any announcements like this coming from China should be taken with a huge grain of salt the size of… China.
Yep. They‘re putting out what they call huge breakthroughs on a weekly basis for months and make headlines. By the time they have been put into perspective or straight out debunked and torn to shreds by the global scientific community, they already squeezed out another wild claim to overshadow criticism. Rinse and repeat. There is a reason the overwhelming majority of AI generated slob studies come from China. They want fast results and know the press won‘t really read them and instead just quote whatever they claim.
eh. they have been verifiably meeting their goals for a long time.
Removed by mod
Skepticism of positive press (aka propaganda) from a country notorious for cracking down on negative press (i.e. any mention of Tiananmen Square) is not a phobia. It’s completely justified.
Removed by mod
Here’s your logical fallacy.
Removed by mod
The discussion was about the unreliability of Chinese propaganda. You moved to funding scientific research. You didn’t just move the goalpost a bit. You relocated it to a different city.
Yo if we’re throwing around logical fallacies you might wanna consider this one= https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
There’s been a whole chain of dialogue here without you substantiating your perspective on the topic at hand 👀
Removed by mod
Me
alleged achievements
No. If true, the achievements are achievements. Actual achievements aren’t propaganda. However, the claims of the alleged achievements are coming from a country notorious for whitewashing history and making claims of scientific discoveries that later turn out to be optimistic at best, and often complete fabrications. So, skepticism of their claims of achievements (aka propaganda) is justified.
And that’s what this thread, that I started, is about. Responding to a post about some alleged scientific breakthrough, stating that such claims should be taken with a big grain of salt (aka, skepticism).
YOU then moved the goalpost to try to argue about whether increased funding for scientific research leads to better results. We don’t know that these results actually happened. We don’t know that there was actually any increase in funding. All we know is that a notorious liar is claiming so. This thread was never about whether funding scientific research can lead to discoveries. It’s about claims of discoveries from China are not reliable.
And that’s when you moved the goalpost, likely because you don’t want to discuss China’s history of lies and propaganda.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod