3 ms·
> Lot of work went into it; even if the final was LLMed. No, it was fully or almost fully LLM generated. See: https://arxiviq.substack.com/p/coming-soon https:
by cubefox 1y ago
> Lot of work went into it; even if the final was LLMed.
No, it was fully or almost fully LLM generated. See: https://arxiviq.substack.com/p/coming-soon https://arxiviq.substack.com/p/coming-soon
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoSo the LLM did all the research? From that posting, it sounds like they accepted a human-made paper, and LLMed it, themselves. The authors are not to blame at all. If otherwise, then it looks like The Singularity has arrived.
- cubefox 1y agoNo the LLM wrote the substack article.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoThat’s what I was saying. It’s a perfectly valid article; an AI-generated summary of a lot of work done by humans. Not a paper that would be presented for peer review, but rather, to be consumed by regular mensch (like me). That’s actually something that AI is pretty good at. I use it to summarize stuff for me, all the time. It should probably have a disclaimer, somewhere, saying what it is, maybe with a link to the raw source, but it’s just another way of communicating. I’ve been reading human-generated marketing drivel for decades. This is actually a lot better than that stuff.
- cubefox 1y agoSummarizing some random text is a quite different task from writing an explainer for a cutting edge AI research paper.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoAh...I don't think this conversation has a future, but I have found that I can use an LLM to give a pretty damn good summary of some fairly verbose and well-organized "random text."