Hi FF,
I have long been aware of Cambridge Consultants being part of Capgemini, as this five-month old post of mine proves:
View attachment 57318
However, I do not think the job ad’s “description” of the employer matches a multinational IT services and consulting company, to which neuromorphic computing is only one technology among several they are interested in (plus I assume they would pay much better). Also, the mystery job advert looks quite different from those openings listed on the Capgemini website (
https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/careers/join-us/).
So I personally don’t think it is Capgemini either. Of course, I could be mistaken.
My point in replying to
@macro ’s post was first and foremost to raise awareness (once again) that AI-generated content cannot simply be accepted at face value. I pointed out two blatant errors and a baffling omission in Perplexity AI’s response, and provided evidence to substantiate my claim. That’s how I like to present my research, so it is transparent for everyone.
Now here comes your reaction: Rather than commenting on the chatbot’s pitfalls in general or simply admitting to the fact that you had been tricked by the AI-generated answer and had overlooked the fact that Cambridge Consultants are actually headquartered in Cambridge and not in London (as the answer engine would like us to believe), you now try to talk your way out of it by claiming that the job ad that explicitly states “Central London location with modern office facilities” (and not just London or Greater London) could be intentionally misleading to attract more applicants, and that in reality the workplace could still be in Cambridge instead, almost 100 km away?! Well, I am sorry, but the burden of proof is on
you here, not on me, so if anyone, you should be the one checking with the employment agency. Besides, Cambridge would be a very attractive location in its own right, if you ask me, and the rental prices are presumably much lower, which could be a decisive factor for freelancers.
Astute readers will also have noticed how you attribute the positively connotated adjective “light hearted” to yourself twice (even though it escapes me of what your reply to the original post has to do with a light-hearted game, as on the contrary I believe you were being dead serious) and portray me in a negative light by calling my post “very aggressive research” and “full-throttle analysis” and by asking “How much of your life did you devote to this non event and demanding that I prove the accuracy of my post?”!
I was neither “very aggressive” in my research (instead, I simply pointed out several errors in the AI-generated answer no one else seemed to have noticed) nor did I “demand” anything from you - instead I politely asked you:
“Could you please provide us with some evidence to back up your claim?”
Let me remind you of your own words in your recent argument with
@Schnitzel lover:
And that’s exactly what I am trying to do here.
So that sole article submitted on June 24, 2021 (!) as well as your memory of another one you say you forwarded to Brainchip in 2022 and their email reply
is all you’ve got to corroborate your claim that Imperial College London “are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly”? If what you claim were true, those numerous publications should be easy to find online, right? So where are they hiding? And why is the only search result I get for Loihi on the Imperial College website a fleeting mention alongside TrueNorth in a 2019 talk abstract by guest speaker Prof Steve Ferber from the University of Manchester (who developed SpiNNaker)?
(
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/events/96903/building-brains-artificial-and-biological-intelligence/)
Well, I am not surprised you didn’t come up with much, as of course I had done a quick Google search myself before politely asking you (not demanding!) to provide evidence (that I couldn’t find).
No, that is simply not true! I did another, more extensive search to double-check.
So a) either you made an honest mistake
b) you are deliberately lying
c) I am too dumb to find the other papers, or
d) the search algorithms here in Germany are vastly different from those in Australia.
Oh, and let’s briefly have a look at the 2021 research paper you shared as “evidence”:
Loihi is mentioned a total of five times (including one reference), and I will let everyone decide for themselves whether or not there is any indication at all the Imperial College researchers were deeply engaged with Intel and working with Loihi at the time, as you claim:
View attachment 57560
View attachment 57561
So I hereby challenge you to post links to at least three to four publications by Imperial College researchers about the research they have allegedly done and still do with Loihi to prove your claim that “they are
deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly.” That should be a piece of cake for you, given that you seem to have a way more effective search engine than me. Otherwise we must assume that your claim is totally unfounded.
You may not like me, and that is fine with me (although it irks me how at times you post supposedly new information or profusely thank others for generously sharing reveals, (deliberately?) ignoring the fact that I had already posted about the exact same thing earlier - I am happy to provide proof), but don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it. It’s double standards to ask others to substantiate their unfounded claims, but then take offence when the same yardstick is applied to you. And if it turns out your own claim has no substance, that is entirely your problem and not that of the person who had asked you for evidence.
So please either substantiate your claim or own up to having made a mistake - it’s as simple as that.
Highly likely not my opinion only,
Frangipani
Thank you!
.
!!!
I guess it's too late to cover up "that" mistake...
