text written by a human, which includes facts, arguments, examples, etc, which were researched/discovered/developed with LLM assistance. (If you “borrow language” from the LLM, that no longer counts as “text written by a human”.)
I continue to endorse that curation and think people have psyched themselves out into thinking that the post is full of major errors for basically no good reason.
EDIT: hadn’t seen Jeffrey’s most recent comment at the time that I wrote this comment, see follow-up.
Do you still stand by this comment in the light of the comment of Jeffrey Heninger on the Solar Storms post saying that he showed it to an expert and “The plasma physics in this post is mostly wrong.”? I think I was the first person to call into question whether the post was basically correct. I hesitated to do so because I knew I might be wrong and there was a risk of causing a pile-on. But in the light of the comment I mentioned above, I am inclined to think I made the right call?
Hadn’t seen that comment at the time I left my previous comment; currently thinking about it. (Tentatively think that the original post contained more errors than I would have wanted, that the core thesis is still fine, and that most of the objections focusing on the use of LLMs as part of the research process of the post are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe don’t endorse the curation ex post, less sure about ex ante, still need to spend more time thinking about what updates to make here.)
Hmm, I’m not sure how I feel about research done with LLM assistance. On the one hand, it’s a useful tool for research, but on the other hand: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ghq9EwiXbRbWSnDzF/solar-storms (why is this still curated, btw?).
Seems like the standard should be something like… can you support/defend each claim without having to use an LLM?
I continue to endorse that curation and think people have psyched themselves out into thinking that the post is full of major errors for basically no good reason.
EDIT: hadn’t seen Jeffrey’s most recent comment at the time that I wrote this comment, see follow-up.
Do you still stand by this comment in the light of the comment of Jeffrey Heninger on the Solar Storms post saying that he showed it to an expert and “The plasma physics in this post is mostly wrong.”? I think I was the first person to call into question whether the post was basically correct. I hesitated to do so because I knew I might be wrong and there was a risk of causing a pile-on. But in the light of the comment I mentioned above, I am inclined to think I made the right call?
Hadn’t seen that comment at the time I left my previous comment; currently thinking about it. (Tentatively think that the original post contained more errors than I would have wanted, that the core thesis is still fine, and that most of the objections focusing on the use of LLMs as part of the research process of the post are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe don’t endorse the curation ex post, less sure about ex ante, still need to spend more time thinking about what updates to make here.)
(The Jeffrey Heninger comment in question.)
It was this one, actually.