Comment by airstrike
Reads like an ad written by an LLM, is my guess.
It could just be that they translated from their original language to English and got that as a byproduct. Many such cases.
Reads like an ad written by an LLM, is my guess.
It could just be that they translated from their original language to English and got that as a byproduct. Many such cases.
So you don't have to read the article to figure out if you want to read the article?
I for one appreciate such comments, given the guidelines to avoid submission summaries.
It is completely disingenuous and unfair to claim that something, especially a small blurb, is written by an LLM. And so what if it actually was written by an LLM. If you want to criticize something, do so on the merits or demerits of the points in it. You don't get a free pass by claiming it's LLM output, irrespective of whether it is or not.
I'm puzzled by this reply. It's perfectly fine for me to hypothesize on the reason for downvotes in response to someone else asking why it has been downvoted.
You're free to opine on the reason for downvotes too. This metacomment, however, is more noise than signal.
What you had claimed is not even a potential reason in the universe of reasons. It is a demonstration of bias, an excuse to refrain from reason.
One line summaries of comprehensible articles can get downvoted because they don't add value beyond what's already very clear from the article.
It also does not add anything interesting to the discussion. Like, why add a bland summary of the article?