One problem with LLMs in academic contexts is that because you're paying by the token, it's resulting in extremely short papers that don't adequately explain the context. It's the same problem with long-standing short papers.

And this is a fine example of this.

▲

qarl 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm wondering - have you asked an LLM to flesh-out the paper for you? Or walk you through the details?

I've been hearing stories of mathematicians who are developing a new found appreciation for LLMs by having them explain the other LLM's paper. I guess the paper has the necessary details but possibly not the best exposition.

EDIT:

Here's a link explaining this paper:

https://claude.ai/share/81b1380d-ca03-4ecb-8475-8e0bb95ea87e

▲

philipwhiuk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No I haven't. Because the purpose of a paper is communicating the development in the field. If they aren't doing it, they're bad papers.

How do I know when I read Claude's interpretation of the paper that it's not hallucinating.

	▲	qarl 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Papers are written for experts, not the public. And nowadays LLMs are the experts. So. It will explain it to you if you ask. And it does a very nice job. You'll probably need to lose the attitude, tho.

▲

p1necone 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The cost of the tokens used to output a typical academic paper length document is on the order of cents, even for frontier models. The vast majority of the cost is in the discussion leading up to that final output - there's no reason someone would try to produce a shorter paper just to save tokens.