A similar BS is also every CEO claiming AI made their company 10x faster yet GDP trends not really budging

I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.

- report benchmark that conveniently omits well known SOTAs, 20 points

- conveniently omit well known benchmarks because not SOTA, 30 points

- change one tiny term in GRPO and call it a completely different acronym, 50 points

- try to slide in a systems hack and but title your paper as though it is a model improvement, 100 points (prizes to the first replier who figures out which recent paper i am subtweeting here)

- forbes 30 under 30, 100 points

The list avoids many of the real sins and has plenty of mis-analysis, for instance,

   20 points for doing the usual motte-and-bailey or hedging in the form of “It is not X. It is Y.”

I mean, that language pattern is often appropriate but for people who are paying attention today it is a sign of... something.

I mean, I am tired of Copilot giving answers like "You're not a fur, you're a therianthrope" It is really a tracer, I think, for someone for whom the lights are on and nobody is home, like they want to be a top blogger about AI but they haven't caught on that the "It's not X, it's Y" pattern is a tell.

-10 points if you actually read your marketing yourself before copy and pasting it on the website