> Read what follows as a map: where open AI is winning — some numbers surprised even us — and where it is exposed. A case that hides its weak points is an advertisement. In the six weeks since our first draft, a major US lab returned to open weights and Washington debated a ban and declined it. The map moved while we drew it.
Some interesting numbers throughout, but I'd love to read the presentation without the obvious Claudeisms.
Agreed; not writing your own prose is lazy and disrespectful. If you expect/hope that humans will read something, you should demonstrate that it is important to you by spending your own time on it, and you should respect their time by being as clear and eloquent as possible (which Claude et al. are decidedly not, for now anyway).
Calling out LLM-generated text seems not to be welcome here. Last time I dared say an article was unreadable because of the amount of slop poured into it, I was accused that '[I have] the usual "big words hard" mindset of people who aren't used to reading well-written prose'. I am never again pointing LLM-generated texts out.
ctrl+f for "distill" is pretty enlightening as to the bent of this publication, for better or worse. They do cover the idea to some extent, but mostly to dismiss threats from DC.
If the creator wanders through here: this is a fantastic presentation from a dataviz perspective, but next time it'd very much be worth the money to pay someone to rewrite 100% of the copy. The Claudisms are just impossible to ignore, and makes you constantly wonder "is this sentence hallucinated, or real?"
I originall clicked this to see discussion of safety, but I guess I'm not sure what I was expecting. Not sure what to say, either. I guess I just hope the mass casualty event that changes everyone's minds on this topic is in the thousands or tens of thousands instead of the millions or billions :(
> Read what follows as a map: where open AI is winning — some numbers surprised even us — and where it is exposed. A case that hides its weak points is an advertisement. In the six weeks since our first draft, a major US lab returned to open weights and Washington debated a ban and declined it. The map moved while we drew it.
Some interesting numbers throughout, but I'd love to read the presentation without the obvious Claudeisms.
Agreed; not writing your own prose is lazy and disrespectful. If you expect/hope that humans will read something, you should demonstrate that it is important to you by spending your own time on it, and you should respect their time by being as clear and eloquent as possible (which Claude et al. are decidedly not, for now anyway).
Thank you, I won't even bother opening TFA.
Calling out LLM-generated text seems not to be welcome here. Last time I dared say an article was unreadable because of the amount of slop poured into it, I was accused that '[I have] the usual "big words hard" mindset of people who aren't used to reading well-written prose'. I am never again pointing LLM-generated texts out.
We’d love to hear more about this and see a deeper discussion here.
https://github.com/orgs/openapi/discussions/categories/open-...
Why is this so cryptic to read?
Because it was written by an LLM
Such a shame to see Mozilla cut corners like this
ctrl+f for "distill" is pretty enlightening as to the bent of this publication, for better or worse. They do cover the idea to some extent, but mostly to dismiss threats from DC.
If the creator wanders through here: this is a fantastic presentation from a dataviz perspective, but next time it'd very much be worth the money to pay someone to rewrite 100% of the copy. The Claudisms are just impossible to ignore, and makes you constantly wonder "is this sentence hallucinated, or real?"
I originall clicked this to see discussion of safety, but I guess I'm not sure what I was expecting. Not sure what to say, either. I guess I just hope the mass casualty event that changes everyone's minds on this topic is in the thousands or tens of thousands instead of the millions or billions :(
[dead]