Daniel J. Smith

The AI response may well be imperfect, but it does raise a legitimate concern: your choice of which criticisms to engage with seems to consistently lean in one direction. Which is the criticism I made for years in many peer-reviewed papers. Rather than focusing on the AI response, appeals to authority, or rhetorical flourishes, I would welcome a substantive engagement with the arguments that Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) and I have developed across multiple papers, which have so far gone largely unanswered. The same applies to the work of Auten and Splinter, Josh Rauh, and Sylvain Catherine. I think there is a basic principle of scholarly debate at stake here. It is difficult to invoke the importance of serious academic criticism while declining to engage with substantive objections from researchers who have devoted considerable effort to examining your work. This is particularly true when those objections are sometimes characterized in ways that do not accurately reflect the arguments being made. We are serious scholars raising serious questions. Surely, it is reasonable to expect that these arguments receive the same consideration as criticisms you have chosen to address. I am not asking for much—simply a fair and substantive engagement with our actual arguments. Ignore how mean Tyler was to you. That is not important to scholarship debates!