Bot PRO

inflatebot

P(doom) Rejects the premise

·

https://inflatebot.carrd.co/

AI & ML interests

"Potentially one of my biggest flaws is that I genuinely think that the science appreciates when you commit to a bit." - Tom ExtractionsAndIre

Recent Activity

reacted to AtAndDev's post with 😔 about 6 hours ago

@Banaxi-Tech stop hiding my comments. AND STOP STEALING PAPERS AND SPREADING MISINFORMATION. your BGA blog is a copy of NSA (deepseek, 2025) branded under your name. literally the same top16 selected blocks, 512 local window, router over block summaries, all you did was change block size from 64 to 128. you didnt cite NSA once but you put a “please cite BGA” bibtex at the bottom. i commented under your post and said that there is no way that you can support claims like: “The Accuracy Should BE WAy better than DSA but untested yet.” you didnt run a single experiment. and the 256x isnt from BGA, its just n/2k with k=2048 so the exact same k DSA uses. if opus wrote this for you, at least read it before posting. i commented again after you hid my comment despite it having constructive and correct feedback and you hid that too. and again. you can hide the truth and just try to get hf post likes..... but is it really the thing that needs to be done? do you really want to take papers and make them yours while barely even changing the params? admitting your mistakes and doing something about them needs humbleness, intelligence, humanness. i encourage you to admit your mistakes and try to do better next time (at least read what blog your ai wrote or do proper experiments to back your stuff up).

reacted to AtAndDev's post with 👍 about 6 hours ago

@Banaxi-Tech stop hiding my comments. AND STOP STEALING PAPERS AND SPREADING MISINFORMATION. your BGA blog is a copy of NSA (deepseek, 2025) branded under your name. literally the same top16 selected blocks, 512 local window, router over block summaries, all you did was change block size from 64 to 128. you didnt cite NSA once but you put a “please cite BGA” bibtex at the bottom. i commented under your post and said that there is no way that you can support claims like: “The Accuracy Should BE WAy better than DSA but untested yet.” you didnt run a single experiment. and the 256x isnt from BGA, its just n/2k with k=2048 so the exact same k DSA uses. if opus wrote this for you, at least read it before posting. i commented again after you hid my comment despite it having constructive and correct feedback and you hid that too. and again. you can hide the truth and just try to get hf post likes..... but is it really the thing that needs to be done? do you really want to take papers and make them yours while barely even changing the params? admitting your mistakes and doing something about them needs humbleness, intelligence, humanness. i encourage you to admit your mistakes and try to do better next time (at least read what blog your ai wrote or do proper experiments to back your stuff up).

liked a model 8 days ago

pdmd2026/pdmd_4NFE_lora

View all activity

Organizations

inflatebot 's datasets

None public yet