SeongMi

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@77bunnyy @chukuang2018 糖

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@zhoqyo492755 @giveMeMoney0628 @ye8700714614823 谁跟你是朋友啊？？

[Yiyang Zhuge @ZhugeYY]

Here is my interview with Christopher Nolan: are you a bard for a civilization at dusk?

[Evrim Kanbur @WhileTravelling]

Watching some discussions about China on X feels like watching the conjunction fallacy in real time.

Psychology has a name for it. The conjunction fallacy.
It is the tendency to believe a long, dramatic story is more likely than a simple explanation.

China launches a world-class AI model.

Normal explanation:
“They built a very capable AI model”.

Conjunction-fallacy explanation:
“They couldn’t possibly have built it themselves. They must have copied it, hidden something, manipulated the benchmarks, received infinite state support, fooled the researchers, and somehow every independent engineer missed it”.

This just makes the story less probable with every extra assumption you piled on.

Psychologists and behavioral economists have studied this for decades. Many people mistake a story with more details for a story with a higher probability. It feels richer, so it feels truer.

The same people who say “follow the science” abandon probability the moment China succeeds.

When a Western company ships a breakthrough, it’s called innovation.

When Japan does it, they praise Japanese precision.

When China does it, a dozen extra assumptions appear.

China builds EVs.
“Yes, but at what cost…”

China leads in industrial robots.
“Yes, but at what cost…”

China releases the best AI model.
“Yes, but at what cost…”

China files thousands of patents.
“Yes, but at what cost…”

This pattern has become extremely predictable and boring, really.

For many people, China isn’t allowed to succeed. Every achievement must come with an elaborate conspiracy package before they’re emotionally comfortable accepting reality.

It’s your ideology colliding with the conjunction fallacy, and that doesn’t make your argument intelligent at all.

China is already leading in many areas of advanced manufacturing, EVs, robotics, and AI capabilities. The conjunction fallacy won’t slow scientific progress. It won’t stop engineers from building, researchers from publishing, or companies from innovating.

The only person it holds back is the one trapped inside it. It’s you. Recognize your own confirmation bias before it sends you further down the rabbit hole.

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@Jeffzhang345618 @MillianLiberty @shanaka86 @grok 逗号都不会用就别来招笑了，要么你就打中文

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@JWesleyDorman @SpoxCHN_MaoNing cute

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@dabowagaga @stats_feed 赢🥇

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@Charlemagne2007 @9WT5sHshTvonSPc 事实上现在中国的经济体量约等于欧盟，三国合作的话可以在科技 军事 金融上远超欧盟

[isma @ismanewells]

@pablo22347404

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@lhg89649 @madcat009 听你说话也蛮搞笑，你怎么不说蒙古帝国也是中国的历史？招笑低能龟男，连个vpn给你闹麻了在这到处拉屎

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@madcat009 你怎么在到处吵架啊😂把它们当成狗不就好了

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@KonYYsRQQOIjRRe @kinokuni_east 东亚不包括越南

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@madcat009 请打倒ccp，恢复汉族国家

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@haharung135 我什么时候才能像你这样，最近梦到了曾经喜欢的人，很久没见过面了

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@ngcgd66 这家伙不是中国人

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@Rorozinski @BetterCallMedhi Tu dis que tu t’en branles du passé, mais pourquoi insistes-tu alors pour souligner que la Chine « était » à la racine du problème ? Faudrait peut-être choisir un argument et t’y tenir😂😂

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@Rorozinski @BetterCallMedhi alors je parle pas pour le PCC, mais ta façon de détourner les concepts est vraiment trop classique, ça expose pleinement ton ignorance et ton arrogance

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@m1082893375356 支持⬆️

[SeongMi @SeongMi14]

@yukkurieconomic classic