> At the same time, SAFE is more than 20 times cheaper than human annotators.> LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on reason- ing benchmarks (Bubeck et al

> At the same time, SAFE is more than 20 times cheaper than human annotators.> LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on reason- ing benchmarks (Bubeck et al., 2023; Gemini Team, 2023; Li et al., 2022) and higher factuality than humans on sum- marization tasks (Pu et al., 2023). The use of human annota- tors, however, is still prevalent in language-model research, which often creates a bottleneck due to human annotators’ high cost and variance in both evaluation speed and qual- ity. Because of this mismatch, we investigate how SAFE compares to human annotations and whether it can replace human raters in evaluating long-form factuality. I am not an expert in this research but this seems like this is just a slippery slope all in the pursuit of cost, first and foremost. Given that the summary focuses on cost and this paragraph mentions cost as the first point, it sure seems like these folks only goal goal is to just take humans out of the mix entirely when it comes to facts. Is this a good idea? I am not sure.