Comment by geraneum

That’s not unfortunate, that’s conflict of interest by a party which directly profits from advertising their products as such.

But let’s assume this is not the case for a moment, following the article, there are some graphics and information, without providing and internal details for third party validation, no access or details to the training data, etc. basically not following any scientific methods which would reaffirm credibility.

I understand, that working with these models, it feels like they are more than “probabilistic databases” but they don’t have to be anything else in order to provide such interesting outputs.