True but I am not sure "nanotech" was used by top S&P 500 companies and their engineers on a daily basis.
When nanotech became a hot concept, the goal posts were moved so that companies could claim they were nanotech companies even though they were using pretty basic chemistry. No nanobots required.
And now we’re seeing a lot of statistics being rebranded as AI because the latter attracts investors and journalists.
All you've done is point out that there are a lot of ML papers coming from tech companies. Nobody is disputing that. Why do you assume this generalizes to most industries?
Also, top S&P 500 companies by market cap are "AAPL","MSFT","GOOG","AMZN","FB","BABA".
I said.
>> and every comment you are redefining what that means
That is false.
You could learn something. Instead, you wasted my time.
2) You point out it applies to FAANG
3) I say FAANG isn't most industries
4) You say most industries must only include those better than the S&P 500
5) I point out a flaw in your reasoning
6) You insist you are right, upset that I tried to ask a question
7) I summarize what happened and exit this thread
That is a lie because I said "often" in "You see that from papers published at top ML conferences. Top contributors are often from FAANG. Some papers are clearly applications." without saying that FAANG = most industries. Instead, I said you can see that from these conferences. Thus, you made it up.
"4) You say most industries must only include those better than the S&P 500"
That is a lie. I didn't say that. I said "If you find no paper from that company, chances are high their stock price is not beating S&P 500 over the last 5 years." I only mentioned a correlation and said nothing about your "most industries".
You misinterpret the text. Fortunately, the text is written so it was easy to prove you are liar, boy.