I was responding to a comment from a person claiming this is not an example where the "intention/substance of the work might exist somewhere buried within a wall of impenetrable LLM text". I am saying this is in fact the case, given human experts almost universally agree that the papers are badly written, with inscrutable, hard to follow logic.
I had initially understood you as saying that this inscrutable logic was merely a consequence of superhuman intelligence, which is what I deemed unlikely. I don't see experts agreeing with that position either.
I am not unhappy about this result, but I am somewhat unhappy about it being dumbed down, decontextualised and understood without any nuance.
I had initially understood you as saying that this inscrutable logic was merely a consequence of superhuman intelligence, which is what I deemed unlikely. I don't see experts agreeing with that position either.
I am not unhappy about this result, but I am somewhat unhappy about it being dumbed down, decontextualised and understood without any nuance.