[advael]

As long as we're doing unsolicited advice, this revision seems predicated on the assumption that we are writing for a general audience, which ill suits the context in which the posts were made. This is especially bizarre because you then interject to defend the benchmarking claim I've called "marketing", and having an opinion on that subject at all makes it clear that you also at the very least understand the shared context somewhat, despite being unable to parse the fairly obvious implication that treating models with undue credulity is a direct result of the outsized and ill-defined claims about their capabilities to which I refer. I agree that I could stand to be more concise, but if you find it difficult to parse my writing, perhaps this is simply because you are not its target audience

[refulgentis]

Let's go ahead and say the LLM stuff is all marketing and it's all clearly worse than all humans. It's plainly unrelated to anything else in the post, we don't need to focus on it.

Like I said, I'm very interested!

Maybe it doesn't mean anything other than what it says on the tin? You think people should treat an LLM like a stranger making claims? Makes sense!

It's just unclear what a lot of it means and the word choice makes it seem like there's something grander going on, coughs as our compatriots in this intricately weaved thread on the international network known as the world wide web have also explicated, and imparted via the written word, as their scrivening also remarks on the lexicographical phenomenae. coughs

My only other guess is you are doing some form of performance art to teach us a broader lesson?

There's something very "off" here, and I'm not the only to note it. Like, my instinct is it's iterated writing using an LLM asked to make it more graduate-school level.

[advael]

Your post and the one I originally responded to are good evidence against something I said earlier. The mere existence of LLMs does clearly change the landscape of epistemology, because whether or not they're even involved in a conversation people will constantly invoke them when they think your prose is stilted (which is, by the way, exactly the wrong instinct), or to try to posture that they occupy some sort of elevated remove from the conversation (which I'd say they demonstrate false by replying at all). I guess dehumanizing people by accusing them of being "robots" is probably as old as the usage of that word if not older, but recently interest in talking robots has dramatically increased and so here we are

I can't tell you exactly what you find "off" about my prose, because while you have advocated precision your objection is impossibly vague. I talk funny. Okay. Cool. Thanks.

Anyway, most benchmarks are garbage, and even if we take the validity of these benchmarks for granted, these AI companies don't release their datasets or even weights, so we have no idea what's out of distribution. To be clear, this means the claims can't be verified even by the standards of ML benchmarks, and thus should be taken as marketing, because companies lying about their tech has both a clearly defined motivation and a constant stream of unrelenting precedent

[mistermann]

> There's something very "off" here

You mean on this planet?

If not, what do you think of that idea? Does something not seem....weird?