When someone says “He’s an unbelievable genius,” I now understand that the person speaking is either a con artist or a gullible idiot. Unbelievable geniuses don’t exist, there’s just specialists, people who get lucky, people who work hard. So if you’re saying someone is such a genius, either you have no metric by which to measure genius, or you’re selling something.
“I think Cullen made the Satoshi accusation for marketing. He needed a way to get attention for his film.”
Cullen is absolutely selling something: he’s selling his documentary.
The various denials and deflections from Todd, [Cullen] claims, are part of a grand and layered misdirection.
Smells 100% like bullshit. I had no take on this documentary one way or the other before, but now I’m very skeptical.
Is it? If ChatGPT wrote your paper, why would citations of the work of Frankie Hawkes raise any red flags unless you happened to see this specific tweet? You’d just see ChatGPT filled in some research by someone you hadn’t heard of. Whatever, turn it in. Proofreading anything you turn in is obviously a good idea, but it’s not going to reveal that you fell into a trap here.
If you went so far as to learn who Frankie Hawkes is supposed to be, you’d probably find out he’s irrelevant to this course of study and doesn’t have any citeable works on the subject. But then, if you were doing that work, you aren’t using ChatGPT in the first place. And that goes well beyond “proofreading”.