alt Hacker News> If you try to tell me that the author of that chart is trying to mislead HN readers about the growth of em-dash use on HN, I'm going to have a hard time taking your claim seriously.
I am saying precisely that. A significant number of HN users have a strong (and IMO irrational) anti-LLM bias. And these people pollute the discussion forums accusing people of using LLMs to write the content/comments.
It's not a stretch to believe that those folks will look at the chart uncritically. Everyone - even the smartest of folks - have blind spots (this was quite apparent when I worked with top professors in their fields while in academia). And blind spots often correlate with their biases.
> I am saying precisely that [the author of that chart is trying to mislead HN readers about the growth of em-dash use on HN].
Well, then, do you believe that the following evidence supports or undermines your hypothesis that the author is trying to mislead HN readers about em-dash use?
1. The author explicitly labeled each data point with its numeric value so that even if readers ignored the y-axis labels they could not misread the points.
2. The author explicitly labeled the pre- to post-AI growth as +79% so that even if readers ignored the y-axis labels and the data-point labels they could not misread the growth.
(The fact that you posed an example about a stock chart earlier but then completely ignored my response that refuted your argument about it suggests that you are not likely to be swayed by evidence and reason, but I'm giving it this one last try.)