[travisjungroth]

> anecdotally based on their own subjective experience

So the “subjective” part counts against them. It’s better to make things objective. At least they should be reproducible examples.

When it comes to the “anecdotally” part, that doesn’t matter. Anecdotes are sufficient for demonstrating capabilities. If you can get a race car around a track in three minutes and it takes me four minutes, that’s a three minute race car.

[tshaddox]

The term "anecdotal evidence" is used as a criticism of evidence that is not gathered in a scientific manner. The criticism does not imply that a single sample (a car making a lap in 3 minutes) cannot be used as valid evidence of a claim (the car is capable of making a lap in 3 minutes).

[Ianjit]

Studies have shown that software engineers are very bad at judging their own productivity. When a software engineer feels more productive the inverse is just as likely to be true. Thats why anecdotal data can't be trusted.

[jimbo808]

I have never once seen extraordinary claims of AI wins accompanied by code and prompts.

[llmslave2]

Anecdotal: (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

If you say you drove a 3 minute lap but you didn't time it, that's an anecdote (and is what I mean). If you measured it, that would be a fact.

[ozim]

I think from your top post you also miss “representative”.

If you measure something and amount is N=1 it might be a fact but still a fact true for a single person.

I often don’t need a sample size of 1000 to consider something worth of my time but if it is sample N=1 by a random person on the internet I am going to doubt that.

If I see 1000 people claiming it makes them more productive I am going to check. If it is going to be done by 5 people who I follow and expect they know tech quite well I am going to check as well.

[hackable_sand]

In this case it's more like someone simulated a 3-minute lap and tried to pass it off as a real car with real friction.