I clearly don’t think your opinions match the definition found in merriam webster… or else I wouldn’t have asked.

You don't think his comment is "an assumption put forward for the purposes of discussion"? That seems a fairly low and generic bar for a comment to reach...

Truthfully, I hold those ideas a little more confidently than purely "for the purposes of discussion", but I suspect you at least understand that the real-world usage of "hypothesis" is quite broad.

I'm kind of tickled at the idea that a "hypothesis" is some hyper-specific thing with trappings of "credibility", and that anything less would be an insult, like we're not all just a bunch of nerds arguing on the internet. It's also kind of sad, though. This is why computer people need liberal arts education.

Still seems closer to noise/LLM ravings than substance.

Are you ever going to directly answer the previous few questions?

I did, comprehensively, but you're apparently not smart enough to understand.

Are those who downvoted enough to grey your comment out… not “smart enough” either?

I don’t think the parent meant that interpretation, as that would also apply to the output of sufficient chimpanzees bashing keyboard and LLMs too…

Which would be practically meaningless without some attached non-zero credibility.

I mean, we're all chimpanzees bashing keyboards around here, at least till proven otherwise

Yeah, hence why I asked… otherwise anyone on HN, including me, could say their opinions are hypotheses too, to be taken just as seriously as the parent’s.

You still don't know what a hypothesis is, after I linked the dictionary definition.

This is still indistinguishable from meaningless noise, since your opinion can’t ever outweigh anyone else’s opinions…