"The goal isn’t to rank models, but to understand how they fail."
The goal isn't to write an informative blog post describing what you learned, but to generate slop and expect other folks to read it.
I really wish people would stop doing this. I love reading about your side projects and all of the cool things you're doing. But, it just feels insulting to open up something that's so obviously completely AI generated. If you aren't willing to write it in your own voice, why would it be worth reading?
You know the meme where a concise sentence is translated by an LLM into a loquacious formal email which is then again summarized to a concise statement by another LLM on the receiving end?
I believe that's what we need to do here. People have some interesting information to share, but they don't care about penmanship and that's not just being lazy. It takes a lot of time to produce a nice post. I cannot guarantee the author used an LLM but there sure is a suspicious amount of em-dashes.
Anyway, there are still some interesting data points so I'd recommend to run the website through an LLM to get a nice summary if the prominent TL;DR is too short for you. Times are a-changing.
I agree somewhat. My issue is primarily that, without the author actually penning the post themselves, we have little to no evidence that they've actually done anything. Maybe the data is all AI generated or hallucinated, maybe the validations weren't thorough. I could determine all of these things myself, via rigorous review of the blog post. But at that point, I'm just doing the research myself, of what use is the post?
For work communications, I agree with you. There's an inherent accountability there. If you send me AI slop, and something goes terribly wrong, you'll be held accountable for the slop. Here, the slop is just noise that prevents us from finding the truly interesting posts.
"The goal isn’t to rank models, but to understand how they fail."
The goal isn't to write an informative blog post describing what you learned, but to generate slop and expect other folks to read it.
I really wish people would stop doing this. I love reading about your side projects and all of the cool things you're doing. But, it just feels insulting to open up something that's so obviously completely AI generated. If you aren't willing to write it in your own voice, why would it be worth reading?
You know the meme where a concise sentence is translated by an LLM into a loquacious formal email which is then again summarized to a concise statement by another LLM on the receiving end?
I believe that's what we need to do here. People have some interesting information to share, but they don't care about penmanship and that's not just being lazy. It takes a lot of time to produce a nice post. I cannot guarantee the author used an LLM but there sure is a suspicious amount of em-dashes.
Anyway, there are still some interesting data points so I'd recommend to run the website through an LLM to get a nice summary if the prominent TL;DR is too short for you. Times are a-changing.
I agree somewhat. My issue is primarily that, without the author actually penning the post themselves, we have little to no evidence that they've actually done anything. Maybe the data is all AI generated or hallucinated, maybe the validations weren't thorough. I could determine all of these things myself, via rigorous review of the blog post. But at that point, I'm just doing the research myself, of what use is the post?
For work communications, I agree with you. There's an inherent accountability there. If you send me AI slop, and something goes terribly wrong, you'll be held accountable for the slop. Here, the slop is just noise that prevents us from finding the truly interesting posts.