Is this article written by an LLM?

sure looks like it was. If they cant bother to write it i'm for sure not going to read it.

ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure I'd see things the same way. Lot of work went into it; even if the final was LLMed. The result is quite readable.

The authors seem to be Chinese, and may not be that confident in their English. I suspect that we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of stuff, as time goes on.

▲

carbocation a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think disclosure is necessary, but I think it can build trust in cases like this. "Please note that we used an LLM to rewrite our initial English draft." The reason to do this is that then people don't waste cycles wondering about the answer to this question.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY a day ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Their LLMed English is much better than my Chinese. Also, some of the very worst English I've ever read, has been technical prose, written by born-and-bred native English speakers with very high educational credentials. Clear communication is important. The best idea on Earth, is worthless, if it can't be articulated well.

▲

cubefox a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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

▲

ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-]

So 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 a day ago | parent [-]

No the LLM wrote the substack article.

▲

ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-]

That’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 a day ago | parent [-]

Summarizing some random text is a quite different task from writing an explainer for a cutting edge AI research paper.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ah...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."

▲

NitpickLawyer a day ago | parent | prev [-]

arxiviq is a project ran by someone on substack. It's not the authors writing this. It's someone's project that takes papers from arxiv and posts them on their own substack. Probably with paid features later. don't forget to like and sub for my LLM type of thing...

Careful where you place your anger. You should not be angry at the people writing the paper.