IMHO, by placing people with a negative attitude toward AI products under the guise "their priors are outdated" you effectively negate any arguments from those people. That is, because their priors are outdated their counterexamples may be dismissed. That is, indeed, the no true Scotsman!

▲

ludwik 4 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t see a claim that anyone with a negative attitude toward AI shouldn’t be listened to because it automatically means that they formed their opinion on older models. The claim was simply that there’s a large cohort of people who undervalue the capabilities of language models because they formed their views while evaluating earlier versions.

	▲	gmm1990 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn’t think gpt5 is any better than the previous chat gpt. I know it’s a silly example but I was trying to trip it up with the 8.6-8.11 and it got it right .49 but then it said the opposite of 8.6 - 8.12 was -.21. I just don’t see that much of a difference coding either with Claude 4 or Gemini 2.5 pro. Like they’re all fine but the difference isn’t changing anything in what I use them for. Maybe people are having more success with the agent stuff but in my mind it’s not that different than just forking a GitHub repo that already does what you’re “building” with the agent.
	▲	barrell 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes but almost definitionally that is everyone who did not find value from LLMs. If you don’t find value from LLMs, you’re not going to use them all the time. The only people you’re excluding are the people who are forced to use it, and the random sampling of people who happened to try it recently. So it may have been accidental or indirectly, but yes, no true Scotsman would apply to your statement.