> Ars Technica: I'm skeptical of AI in general, particularly in a research context, but there are very specific instances where it can be extremely useful. This strikes me as one of them, largely because your basic model proved to be so robust.

You can't accuse them of hiding their bias and contradictions.

How can a single paper using a unproven (for this type of research) tech disprove such (alleged) skepticism.

People bending over backwards to do propaganda to harvest clicks.