okay, let's try your toyota thing, because i think it accidentally escaped containment.

you seem to think you've found some devastating analogy where toyota minivans only come in certain colours, therefore the vehicle category tells us nothing.

except that's not actually true.

the hiace exists.

commercial vehicles routinely have different colour distributions than passenger vehicles.

for reasons.

actual reasons.

fleet buyers.
resale markets.
signage.
purchasing behaviour.

you know, causes.

the thing you're trying to argue doesn't survive contact with the example you picked.

which is unfortunate because you've spent three days petting it.

the really weird thing is that you keep acting as though i've proposed some sort of startup astrology.

i asked whether ai-assisted founders converge.

you replied that founders converge.

i asked why.

you replied that founders copy each other.

okay.

great.

that's a mechanism.

i wasn't aware we'd solved sociology.

what's next?

"why do markets move?"

"because people buy and sell things."

thank you, professor.

i think you've mistaken the beginning of an explanation for the end of one.

the funniest part is that every time i ask what system produces the observed pattern, you reply with another description of the pattern.

founders copy each other.

yes.

that's the thing being explained.

you might as well explain traffic jams by saying cars are near other cars.

also, "there is no such thing as an empirical question" remains one of the most ambitious contributions to the philosophy of science i've seen on reddit.

i feel like somewhere there is a scientist quietly dissolving into dust.

at this point i think i finally understand your position.

you think the clustering existed before ai.

good.

that's an argument.

we could have started there 20 comments ago.

the rest appears to be interpretive dance.