4 ms·

At the risk of retracting from the really cool project, I notice that a lot of highlighted phrases in a text is indicative of an LLM writer. Not that I have any

• aspect0545 1y ago
  That would also fit because the image on the top is very clearly AI generated. I find that quite off-putting to be honest.
• stefanfis 1y ago
  As long as the content is great, this doesn‘t matter at all. It helps especially non-native speakers a lot to clearly communicate their ideas. And it saves time for the important work. We should get used to it as fast as we can.
  • multjoy 1y ago
    If you’re not going to write it, why should I read it?
    • spacedcowboy 1y ago
      No-one is forcing you to. Not everyone who has the knowledge of how to put together a radio telescope is also awesome at creating a website. It seems everyone is a critic, these days… And if you don’t think that having an appealing website is at least as important as the content within when doing outreach, I may have a bridge to sell you.
      • multjoy 1y ago
        They don't need to be awesome, they just need to write their own words. If someone can't be bothered to write the copy for their project, what else have they handed over to an LLM?
        • lucb1e 1y ago
          > what else have they handed over to an LLM? A version in their own language or with lots of spelling mistakes that take people out of the story as well (Charitably, that is)
        • Xss3 1y ago
          ChatGPT is a better writer than me. Simple as that. It takes my words and ideas and communicates them more effectively. They're still my words and ideas being fed to it. It just transforms them into something others enjoy reading. It asks me questions I forgot to answer. Etc.
          • multjoy 1y ago
            No it doesn't. It makes them average. It regresses as far as it can to the mean because that's what it does. It has no creativity, it cannot think. It has no idea what is right, only that it can make your input look like the corpus of data that it has been trained on. If you think that's better, then that's your look out.
          • nullc 1y ago
            I find ChatGPT is a fairly mediocre writer: It uses a lot of overwrought and exaggerated language that becomes fatiguing rather quickly. It's also frequently used by fraudsters and in spam, so you run a real risk of 'your' writing style giving unintended impressions when you rely on it.
            • Xss3 1y ago
              When I say it's a better writer...I really mean it's a faster writer. It's a tool. You can ask for 15 variations on a sentence, ask it to be more or less concise, or to tailor it to a certain audience. Ask it for 5 ways to communicate a stronger feeling of X. Etc. If you just blindly ask it to write it isn't great. It has far greater writing ability than I do but it doesn't know what's good and what isn't, it needs guidance.
              • 1y ago
    • bluerooibos 1y ago
      That sentence sounds nice but what does it even mean? Does the value of written content come from it being written by a human, or the fact that it's enjoyable to read and/or transfers useful information/knowledge? Whether a person wrote it or not is irrelevant. It's almost like complaining someone used a typewriter instead of hand writing something.
      • multjoy 1y ago
        It's entirely relevant. If you've chucked a prompt at ChatGPT and called it a day, the output is an approximation of human thought. There is no originality, it is text vomited onto a page that may, or may not, resemble human creativity. If you're content with that, then bully for you. The rest of us want words written by humans.
    • macintux 1y ago
      If you’re not going to write it in assembly, why should I use your software?
• Aachen 1y ago
  You think that's why every sentence (outside of figure captions and intro) has a bold part? It's sprinkled throughout so much that it hinders regular reading (or maybe that's just me? I find it really hard to read any paragraph at normal speed and not get distracted and skip to a bold part only to be missing context) and anyone looking to read the important bit is not aided in any way I've also seen this on human texts, but only quite long ago