The Reddit comment linked by the topmost comment here says that you claimed AI couldn’t do knowledge graphs and then silently stopped claiming that after being proven wrong. Do you dispute that telling of events?

Silence in response to your comment is great evidence for its thesis.

I would say that it seemed you were aiming a cannon at a mosquito. So what that Alexander showed us some slightly more coherent cherry picked images from some rather vague prompts. Not only did I not take that post as anything resembling science, I also didn’t take it more seriously than the average Reddit post with an interesting generation. It seemed completely non-serious to me, proof of nothing, not a Google PR submarine and mostly in good fun. The irony being that within your excellent post about compositionality, you seem to have missed his meaning, which seemed to me was “this is a fun thing I am excited about, I think it’s subjectively improving and I enjoy being right about that.”

Otherwise I thought you had a great introduction to compositionality and didn’t need to tilt at any windmills to make your points. I look forward to seeing your benchmark results for recent and upcoming models.

keep fighting the good fight, hacker news is full of indentured solipsists.