Member Info for BobsSocks

@Crownos Beg to differ so you can call me stupid as well. Given CPAI cannot train their own models they are stuck with placing a wrapper around established models. Those wrappers will be used to guide the base model by adding additional constraints and direction to the prompts provided by the user. It's part of the "It can't be that stupid. You must be prompting it wrong." Ethos. It's exactly the same as the bucket list of safety prompts such as "Don't help someone kill themselves." added by the developers of the models. Don't @ me. I can make up stuff just as well, if not better than you. Bye.

Https://bsky.app/profile/breadpanes.bsky.social/post/3mkndhrb7as2g

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

"Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task."

Https://bsky.app/profile/techwontsave.us/post/3mkinmmrab22o

The guy admitted it in his last interview. He sits about coming up with words that he strings together along with the letters AI and then he throws his uncooked spaghetti against the wall to see if any of it sticks. "AI enhanced Quantum Compute Age Extending Recommendation Engine." etc etc. Then the punters dream of their multibag and average down. Riddle me this. Has he ever had a commercial success with an AI product?

I have no idea why this person needs to post their dross outside of the LSE forums.

If they have an issue with Phimx then they should be childish here.

mikey_dj

2 Mar '26 - 20:47 - 24836 of 24836

0 0

Meanwhile, on the LSE phimx needs an FG selfie or IT didn't happen narrative

"Mummy, can i have a biscuit ?" - "No Phimx"

"Mummy, can i have a biscuit ?" - "No Phimx"

"Mummy, can i have a biscuit ?" - "No Phimx"

"Mummy, can i have a biscuit ?" - "No Phimx"

"Mummy, can i have a biscuit ?" - "No Phimx"

Thank You for Your Attention to This Matter.

As some of you may be aware the QBT thread has recently been infested with some random who is a crusader for investor rights and will brook no argument from people who resort to insults because this makes them some lower form of life.

As such they would not wish to publish the following to this forum...

"You're no "skeptic", phimx, you're a malicious, basement bound petulant child. Always goalpost-moving, sarcasm as a shield for your fragile ego."

Which is quite a good description of themselves but we are not allowed to be like them and in order to avoid the destruction of their illusion of themselves they have to vent their frustration on another forum.

Nope. Still don't see it. Perhaps you can publish the link...

https://www.google.com/search?q=author+42+review

Douglas Adams seems popular.

"On a lighter note to the obvious downturn of the shareprice, searching for Author42 now seems to show the Author42 website with a direct review score of 4.8/5 with 847 reviews.

Now, I cannot find where these reviews are to look at them..."

That's OK. Just give the search term and engine you used to get the number :-)

Not at all Stewart. I see you have been a long time sufferer on this one. I'm pointing the finger at names that appeared out of nowhere today.

You can spot them because they regularly pop up when a share is in the top percentage gainers lists. A board gets flooded with the usual suspects all trying to pump it having had a quick traders punt. Give it a week and apart from a few stalwarts they will all be gone as they chase their next ramp leaving the less wary sitting on losses.

Is Stratton Oakmont still about?

Didn't they consolidate to get above 1p in order to list on the US market. If so what happens if it drops below 1p?

I think folks should recognize that these AI models ingest comments from forums such as these and bias their opinions as a result. That's why the bashers with their multi-id accounts using the same wi-fil are on these boards day and night rubbishing companies with brilliant prospects so they can get in lower and profit from their shorts.

Of course reactions may vary given the open ended nature of the delay but at least they are keeping shareholders informed.

Take QBT as an example. They have had years and years of patent applications, discussions and advanced discussions, exchanges of legal documents, non-disclosure agreements, supposed agreements and trials.

They never, absolutely never, given any updates on progress or the lack of it with all of these things. Just announce more of the same and mention new Squirrels.

"The information set out below is provided in accordance with the requirements of Article 19(3) of Regulation 2014/596/EU, which is part of the domestic law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant to the Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (SI 2019/310). "

Then we get a bundle of 'bonus?' and 'option?' awards along with what appears to be the dates they gave them to themselves...

"Date of the transaction(s) 1. 23 April 2025 2. 28 May 2025 3. 4 September 2025 4. 4 November 2025"

"Date of the transaction(s) 1. 23 April 2025 2. 28 May 2025 3. 4 September 2025 4. 4 November 2025"

Why not report the awards at the time they were awarded?

"Hi Ron. Richard Here. Does any of this rubbish work?" "Yo! Richard the F you care let's just award ourselves shares in the background and see what happens. We can snaffle them later if things look good. "You sure about this?" "ChatGPT says it will work."

"Yo Ron. Are things good?" "The F you care. Let's just announce the snaffle so our mates can bank more profit. I'll get ChatGPT to hallucinate an RNS and the mugs will think they are onto a winner."

"In accordance with the anti-dilution provisions announced on 12 March 2025 (RNS Number: 2759A), Professor Ronjon Nag has been granted additional conditional awards ("Conditional Awards") over 39,304,780 new Ordinary Shares, and Richard Edwards has been granted additional share options ("Share Options") over 9,826,194 new Ordinary Shares."

Can someone tell me what that means? Specifically what is the difference between a 'Conditional Award' and 'Share Options'.

I kind of understand that 'options' are the thing that companies use to dupe their shareholders into thinking that since someone awarded them to themselves at a buy in price of £1 when the SP is 2p it means the company is going to do amazing stuff but I see no mention of the not going to happen if ever buy in price.

Presumably the 'conditional award' is subject to Nag actually bothering to produce something of value.

So... Basically that is all meaningless pie in the sky jam tomorrow stuff.

ITMT someone has warrants to dump on the market for their own immediate profit.

ISTR EA being a player when it came to Gaming Software...

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/10/27/electronic-arts-is-losing-income-and-crippled-by-debt-more-ai/

"The very biggest, most epic idea the executives can think of is “make a maze of cardboard boxes.” These are the sort of insightful minds we need leading a game studio."

I also ISTR a presentation made by Nag's students where they cobbled something together that looked like a broken version of MineCraft.

Perhaps a similar "maze of cardboard boxes".

Like... seriously.

You guys think Nag and his students are going to spin up multiple versions of ground breaking authoring tools across all fields of creativity because they can parse to and from XML.

No doubt someone will drop by to say the ex property/substation developers will only have to pony up £2 Million if it works and these are £2 Billion prospects if random numbers ensue.

I'll stick with a £15 King Prawn Curry with Special Fried Rice unless the local Pivots to AI.

Come on folks.

Mr Nag and his students just interface with OpenAI and give different names to their products. At best they think they can prompt it better than you.

"That said - I would say even pending patents bring partnership or licensing value. Plus if the discussions are advanced serious pharma would evaluate this during DD nor would they engage (in my view) if the IP was weak."

Kind of. Now you need reporting of this DD before the end of the year as CEO Tim has suggested. I'm not sure he promised it. I may have missed it but I thought the discussions were with distributors. If P140 is not approved then you cannot distribute it.

Otherwise the IP is not against P140 it is for selection of patients likely to be responsive to P140. I do not see the value add unless P140 is approved and specifically approved as being effective for autoimmune or other conditions.

I would suggest that Tim, Sebastien and Laura go back to the drawing board and ask themselves whether the application for something that identifies patients that will respond preferentially to P140 cannot be applied to other medications before to talking to these third parties.

That would be multiple orders of magnitudes BIGGER than what they appear to be suggesting at the moment.

Anyway. Night Night and enjoy your future profits.

"Its too early for a patent number yet apparently. The application needs to be formally published by the patent office before its publicly available."

Assuming the initial filing is via the UKPTO this would not prevent the company itself from giving you the application number such that when it was published you could do a search based on that application number.

https://www.search-for-intellectual-property.service.gov.uk/

Yes it will take some time for the online record to be updated but when it is you will find zero information beyond that number, the inventor/owner and the priority date.

That publication will likely cause a lot of flapping about. Woot! We have patent. No. You do not. You have an application.

As CEO Tim told you in the presentations wot you have listened to no details about the content of the application or the back and forth between the company and the patent office will not be made available to you for 18 months.

As CEO Tim also told you moving to grant is not a walk in the park and I very much doubt that Tim, as CEO, is going to give you a blow by blow update on progress or lack of during those 18 months.

Hopefully he will, might get an examination report in about six months. However, for me, this is an anomaly of the Patent System.

I know of one company who filed, spent 18 months telling investors were going really well and then the case file was published and the application had been rejected at least three times because MOPP.

The CEO of that company told his investors the UKPTO was being nasty to them and the EPO, via the PCT would be much easier. It was not.

If CEO Tim has filed via the UKPTO he will have to file via the PCT 12 months from the priority date if the UKPTO grants or if it does not to obtain World rights or maintain the claims.

His talk of 20 years of protection is CEO Flim Flam. There is no protection without grant. End of.

Also the claim by Sebastien that his results prove that they will succeed is naive. The patent office does not care if you think your results say that your stuff does what you think it does.

They want Novelty, An Inventive Step and Industrial Application.

Have a look through this, previously mentioned, lot...

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=+Sylviane+Muller

Global Dossier links.

There may be a, qualified, success but they are outnumbered by the fails.

At CEO Tim says. It is not easy. Thanks Tim.