Tut tut tut… I asked an LLM if your message was actually truthful.
ChatGPT says: You’ve taken a couple of timeline points and stretched them into sweeping conclusions. “Old tech” and “patents expired” don’t prove something doesn’t work—they just describe age and IP status. Jumping from that to “nothing of substance” is opinion, not fact.
Grok says: This is the usual trick—stack a few loosely true statements, then bolt on a big conclusion like it’s inevitable. It isn’t. Age of a technology and profitability claims don’t magically equal “snake oil.”
Claude says: The argument conflates separate issues: development timelines, patent status, and commercial performance. These factors alone cannot establish whether a technology is effective or not.
Copilot says: The post presents selective points as definitive proof. Without evidence directly addressing performance or outcomes, the conclusion remains speculative rather than factual.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
