> "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.
How? "appreciate" in this sense is not a transitive verb. There cannot be an agent.
In any case, I don't think you need to defend this. It's not about humans never using that pattern, it's about how frequent it is relative to LLMs. Individual counterexamples do not disprove a trend.
It's not "we should live in the same environment we evolved in to be happy", it's "the things that make us happy are a product of the environment we evolved in, and we should take that into consideration".
I hate that this discussion is about OpenAI vs. Anthropic and not OpenAI+Anthropic vs. Google.
Google put up so little of a fight against the DoW for their use of Gemini that we didn't even hear about it. They are clearly the worst of the evils here, but OpenAI is the one getting all of the negative press.
Nobody uses "performant" to refer to any of those. It usually means either high throughput, or some aggregate of high throughput + low latency + low memory usage.
Did this project exist in some form since 1997? The Wayback Machine shows that the website was previously completely different - a fan site for someone connected to the Norwegian royal family.
The wording was just an attempt to illustrate the point. There are cases where you can rephrase a sentence with "zero" to get basically the same meaning, but the important thing is that "zero" falls into the same semantic class as other numerals, which other ways of negatively qualifying existence don't.
Put another way, the invention was not literally the word "zero", or anything to do with language per se. It was the idea that you can think about lack of existence in the same was that you think about counting, i.e. treating the idea of there being two apples and the idea of there being zero apples as two examples of the same thing in your mind, instead of treating one as being in some way fundamentally different.
Being raised with a maths education from a young age now, it's easy to see this as obvious, but there was a time in human history when it wasn't.
Also, I wasn't disagreeing with the Cartesian coordinate system being more significant.
"nothing" is not the same the same as "zero". "zero apples" means something different to "nothing", but that difference is subtle and difficult to explain, which is what makes the invention of zero such an achievement.