For being one of the biggest AI boosters on HN, you'd really think you could make a stronger case than "Apollo is bad because they observed and reported on a fact". It wasn't a prediction, so there's nothing to "hold up very well".

Misunderstanding what actually qualifies as a "prediction" seems to be a recurring problem among AI commentators.

I've seen dozens of posts/top comments in the last few years dunking on "AI skeptics" for statements that didn't even vaguely resemble an actual prediction.

Like the front page post from Karpathy which got 600+ upvotes by throwing an AI model at old Hacker News comments without any human vetting to score "predictions". And upon further inspection included a bunch of unambiguously factual statements of the present or conditional if-then logic about the future which when glossed over for convenience become "failed" predictions.

I'm judging them here based on their chosen headlines.

A surfer is not a wave booster, this is a poor characterization.