They're not saying "one point" about the conclusion, they're saying that their statement isn't nearly confident enough, and that they would prefer that they say with strong confidence that there is unequivocally NO positive effect on cognition.
It is a hell of a thing for a random person on an internet forum to be so unilateral, without providing some kind of strong evidence (aside from statements about "the industry", which is kind of beside the point). I would also suggest if you want to be so unequivocal, that the burden of proof is especially high for you.
This "point" isn't actually all that rational - it's knee jerk skepticism. It's a fine default for yourself, but it's not something you get to force on others because they admit there's room for the potential of benefit.
Again: You're perfectly fine to hold that opinion yourself, but when you start trying to force that on others - you now have an especially high bar to reach, and yes - being a lead researcher in the field is exactly what I'm looking for when someone says "X has been proven to not have a benefit for Y".
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian" - Not sure the point of that juvenile wordplay, but Ok: we do have these things called scientists, some are good, some are terrible. You still need to back up your statements - that's the key part, this isn't a blind appeal to authority. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Trust me, I'm a nerd with very strong beliefs about a topic I know very little about".
I have normal hair, and probably less hair loss than is average for someone my age. I don't use products on it. Aside from this issue, it's been clear sailing the whole time.
What I'm getting from all this is that we have an armchair expert explaining details about something they're not an expert in, and we have you reviewing the way they present this information, saying their very weak hedge wasn't strongly negative enough. Based on priors about the industry.
Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).
"poses no danger to your hair" I keep hearing folks say this, and even in this thread there's someone who's experienced that and had it stop when they eliminated creatine. I too have experienced exactly that with exactly the stopping of issues once I stopped taking creatine.
Perhaps you can say "danger to your hair is rare", but there's very clearly (to me at least) an effect there, and the way it gets hand-waved away is strange to me.
For the near future it seems that the new models will consume whatever improved hardware capacity we have. Competing with that is challenging, but I also think there will be strong economic incentives towards cheaper but adequate models on other providers.
I don't think we'll see home users being able to match even the low end clouds for a long time.
Longer term I think we'll see these uses of AI cluster into a few groups:
- maximal code / reasoning quality, at high prices (Fable)
- so cheap I don't care about utilization (Deepseek, and friends)
And also more niche ones:
- ultra fast with high quality answers (typically sub-SOTA). Cerebras / dedicated silicon type approaches, expensive.
- ultra fast with mostly-adequate answers, and an openness to retries, moving up to better models
I think the open models will dominate (not with individuals, but low cost providers) all except the top 1-2 of those categories, and there will be a continuous erosion on the big player's moats. The top categories are also where all the money is, but I'm not sure it can justify those investments long-term. I also think they will have to squeeze more money out of them to justify the investments, which will also drive people down the list.
"while others have their own battles, they are very rarely similar to this" - meh, I don't think that's true. Being human is hard, and in some circumstances can be very fucking hard. If you've had a challenging time in your youth, that makes it exponentially harder.
That's most people. They just keep it inside, assuming everyone else is doing better than they are.
The Buddhists call that seeking ground, and they consider it to be a real source of suffering. Their take is that the reality is fundamentally groundlessness, and the more you can relax into that (easier said than done), the less you'll suffer when the inevitable shit hits the fan.
As someone who has had a metric ton of shit hit his fan, this is a hard pill to swallow, but very effective medicine and has helped me tremendously.
In modern terms, you could say it's good to embrace a growth/flexibility mindset and work on the things that help you to build and restore resilience.
When you're not personally identified with your work, it stings a whole lot less when someone rips it up. And keep in mind we're imperfect people working with other (often very) imperfect people. It's a mess, and always will be.
"HN comments are _NOT_ going to help debugging your mental state" ... I mean in aggregate, sure. But of course there could be people that are offering useful advice, in a well meaning way - that could actually help OP. You're being really negative here, and I think it's unwarranted.