people who throw out “x is a fallacy” very seldom have anything interesting to say, and this point is no different. the thing is not released yet. there does not exist any easy way to communicate how strong any particular llm model is en toto, so people inevitably look for stories, metaphors, and the like to help explain the story. saying that it is “vastly oversold” is comically absurd for a model that has not been released yet, especially through the lens of a completely unfalsifiable framework for contextualizing it. here, i’ve got a “fallacy” for you: this whole post reeks of “no true scotsman”: it is bold to claim that the model is oversold in its abilities when it has racked up this many novel proofs before even being released widely, but hiding behind “that doesn’t mean it is good at ‘math, generally’” is absolute weasel language— it invites proof-by-example in a way more flagrant and devastating than anything the author points out about the discourse around the model itself.