4 ms·

> Disclaimer: if you haven’t figured out by now that this manuscript is satire, this manuscript is satire I find this annoying, and not funny, honestly. Why a

> Disclaimer: if you haven’t figured out by now that this manuscript is satire, this manuscript is satire I find this annoying, and not funny, honestly. Why are satire papers mixed in with real ones on arxiv.org? Obviously, I'm not a research scholar and don't know how the whole process works, but as someone who likes to know whether they are dealing with fact or fiction from the start, this was a waste of time.

waveBidder 3y ago
If I were you, my take away would be that if you can't evaluate a paper critically enough to immediately tell this is satire, maybe stick to sources that have been vetted by those who can (published papers, books, etc) until you're familiar enough with the field. Arxiv is for researchers communicating with other researchers, and the tendency of AI/crypto groups to use it for marketing has been a disservice to the public.
- gardnr 3y ago
  There aren't any special critical evaluation skills required. The arxiv page says: > Comments: 3 pages, satire Tangentially, it's worth pointing out that you are gatekeeping read access to a resource because of a write access problem. If you don't want open access then go back to Elsevier.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    Technically they're gatekeeping because of a read ability problem.
    - gardnr 3y ago
      You are correct! I must have had a read ability problem when they conflated the two issues.
  - waveBidder 3y ago
    I was giving advice for how to learn a subject. The text is obviously satire even without the warnings if you understand the fundamentals of ML. I'm not saying they need a PhD or something. I have no problem with open access, and would rather journals were required to be open access. But reading brand new results that haven't had any peer review without familiarity with the field is putting the cart before the horse. I certainly don't learn a new subject by reading the hottest papers on arxiv.
amenhotep 3y ago
Because it's not just trying to be funny for the sake of it, it's a genuine and biting criticism of the way LLMs are commonly evaluated. Reductio ad absurdum as a paper.

waveBidder 3y ago

If I were you, my take away would be that if you can't evaluate a paper critically enough to immediately tell this is satire, maybe stick to sources that have been vetted by those who can (published papers, books, etc) until you're familiar enough with the field. Arxiv is for researchers communicating with other researchers, and the tendency of AI/crypto groups to use it for marketing has been a disservice to the public.

gardnr 3y ago
There aren't any special critical evaluation skills required. The arxiv page says: > Comments: 3 pages, satire Tangentially, it's worth pointing out that you are gatekeeping read access to a resource because of a write access problem. If you don't want open access then go back to Elsevier.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  Technically they're gatekeeping because of a read ability problem.
  - gardnr 3y ago
    You are correct! I must have had a read ability problem when they conflated the two issues.
- waveBidder 3y ago
  I was giving advice for how to learn a subject. The text is obviously satire even without the warnings if you understand the fundamentals of ML. I'm not saying they need a PhD or something. I have no problem with open access, and would rather journals were required to be open access. But reading brand new results that haven't had any peer review without familiarity with the field is putting the cart before the horse. I certainly don't learn a new subject by reading the hottest papers on arxiv.

amenhotep 3y ago

Because it's not just trying to be funny for the sake of it, it's a genuine and biting criticism of the way LLMs are commonly evaluated. Reductio ad absurdum as a paper.