There's a difference between cynical and skeptical, from google:

"A skeptic doesn't believe anything without strong reasons, which is why it is also associated with doubt, especially when something hasn't been experienced yet. Cynicism is believing the worst of something or someone. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is an outlook on life."

If cynicism is believing the worst in something or someone, then believing that this article is just PR is by definition not cynical, since it is not the worst thing one could believe.

You're replying to the wrong post I think. I was just correcting the misuse of the word cynicism, nothing else.

> It has nothing to do with evidence.

If you understand Bayesian reasoning, then we all have unjustifiable prior beliefs, perhaps due to innate personality, or due to our own experiences.

Calling someone a cynic is often just a way to bash someone who has different priors.

The better thing would be to ask where those priors come from, no?

> Its not cynical if you've actually had any dealings with IBM and Watson.

Maybe GP knows something you don't and he's talking from experience?

I'm sure the GP knows many things I don't. The only point of my post was the definition of the word cynical. It's probably fair to say that skepticism is an admirable trait while cynicism isn't. Feynman was a proponent of skepticism not cynicism.

The applicability of either moniker towards anyone in this debate, or any other, is up to the participants to hash out.

skeptical!=cyncial