Hacker News Reader

> In trying to come up with some good examples I asked LLMs. (…)

> So I tried to cast the net more broadly and asked LLMs (…)

> EDIT: also hunted down several mistakes, as one would expect from LLMs; thanks to commenters.

This is a slop post. You can’t trust any of the data. It’s baffling and worrying the author apparently understands mistakes from LLMs are to be expected but still decided to publish without doing due diligence.

View on HN

"Source: I made it up" was a meme meant to be deployed in conversations between children online. And now we're seeing the phrase deployed sincerely and almost verbatim in the annals of the most prestigious institutions of thought.

Things seem a bit more dire now.

You're pushing back against openly using LLMs to assist in research for writing articles.

In my opinion the effect of your pushback is nudging people to not disclose their use of LLMs. I'm not sure that's what you want.

In other words, if every time someone says "I used an LLM to assist me with this article" they get backslash, these people will not stop using LLMs. They'll stop telling that they did.

I don't think the problem is that they used an LLM to write the article. It seems that the commenter takes issue with them using the LLM to get the data to analyze.

And not even verifying it before publishing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com