Not sure what I read, but sounded like a lunch meeting description; felt void of actual information, with the restaurant replaced by the office. I am in China and can tell it is either Kimi, DeepSeek or Claude (proxied or actually deepseek/fake). The bigger push for the general public died down a lot since last year; kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messaging.

▲

sinuhe69 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With government billions fund pushed for AI build out, fast pace integration on large scale and sweeping national education reform for AI, I don't think it can be called "died down".

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-prepares-295-billi...

[1] https://www.globalneighbours.org/en/articles/china-unveils-n...

[2] https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202606/10/content_WS6a296017...

▲

genewitch 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messaging.

in the early 2000s in california universities you'd get marked down for citing wikipedia. so the good souls told everyone "see the number in brackets[2] after what you're trying to cite the article for? just click that then click the archive.org or whatever link there, then cite that."

Now? i think wiki is considered a valid source? or has it flopped back to being "unreliable"?

▲

sheept 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that it's unreliable, it's just lazy research. Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source, but ideally your essay should be a mix of primary and secondary sources, while Wikipedia discourages original research and prefers only secondary sources. Wikipedia itself recommends against citing it as research[0] for this reason.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

▲

kaliqt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Laziness should never be the issue.

The issue is that Wikipedia can be wrong and you’d only know that by going to the source (or lack thereof), or checking other sources.

	▲	pqtyw 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All secondary sources can be just as wrong, while standards of course might differ being published doesn't prove much on its own. Also of course in many/most non theoretical fields you find plenty of conflicting sources so relying on a "consensus" based high quality encyclopaedia article seems like a more reliable approach if you are new to the field and don't really understand what you are reading.

▲

ValentineC 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think Wikipedia's still considered unreliable, but the question that should be asked is whether the author even read the source in "the number in brackets" to ensure that it's even backed properly.

Just like how people should use AI for research, I guess.

▲

tyingq 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Were things like "300 employees" and descriptions of the deliberately low key hdq out there before? That counts as actual information to me.

▲

adampunk 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s a puff piece written by someone who didn’t know (or didn’t care) they were being managed.

	▲	gbraad 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Like this, read my blog" — said DeepSeek