spats1990

> if LLMs can generate higher quality comments more consistently than humans

Do you believe this?

When you encounter these comments/sentiment, pretend that LLM = Loweffort Long Mumbling. In other words, poor writing.

Detection of "LLM" is a red herring. Quality is what matters. Always has been. Assess comment quality holistically, and you'll be fine.

See my edits in the comment above.

I will further note that understanding the royal society vs university distinction here is pretty important, but it seems that you've already made up your mind.

I won't be responding again here, thanks.

> and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse.

I was talking about the columnist from the Spectator, not the scientist.

> I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action?

The university didn't take action (apart from the email from the VC, the full content of which we don't have to hand). It was the Royal Society of New Zealand that set up the panel. Totally different. I think your question here is answered by the text I quoted in my earlier post:

"To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics."

edit: >Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context? I see what you are getting at, but I think the issue is more that the letter publicly misrepresented something in a way that was in itself not scientific.

I'll have to think about it, but I'm leaning toward thinking the Spectator columnist, at least, is badly misrepresenting what has happened.

Beyond that I actually don't really have strong feelings about this yet because it's honestly the first I've heard of it, even though I live in NZ.

>Coca-Cola produces valuable goods, if you choose to take an action that results in the bottle floating out to sea, it's your fault, you don't get to blame Coca-Cola. That is what I mean by personal responsibility.

So in your ideal world it is 100% personal responsibility and 0% corporate responsibility, right?

"Phillip Morris produces valuable goods, if you choose to take an action that leads to your body growing a tumour, it's your fault, you don't get to blame Phillip Morris."

Corporations like Coca-Cola have successfully pushed the negative externalities of their product into the world we all have to live in, while keeping the profits.