The author was transparent about this, with the quote that you highlight. I feel like when the author is clear on the source, and has provided some amount of effort of oversight, then the information could be handled responsibly by readers.
I think including this sort of section is basically a bait and switch—it allows the author to assert positions, potentially persuading people of them, but if challenged on the LLM slop to hide behind “oh yeah but I said I didn’t mean that”.
I have now reviewed and edited the relevant section.
My feeling when I drafted it was as per Ozzie’s comment—as long as I was transparent, I thought it was OK for readers to judge the quality of the content as they see fit.
Part of my rationale for this being OK was that it was right at the end of a 15-page write-up. Larks wrote that many people will read this post. I hope that’s true, but I didn’t expect that many people would read the very last bits of the appendix. The fact that someone noticed this at all, let alone almost immediately after this post was published, was an update for me.
Hence my decision to review and edit that section at the end of the document, and remove the disclaimer.
I actually like that you did this; there’s such little information on the news “firehose” right now that a possible accuracy/content tradeoff is entirely reasonable!
Please don’t do this. Many people will read the post; you are defecting against the epistemic commons here.
The author was transparent about this, with the quote that you highlight. I feel like when the author is clear on the source, and has provided some amount of effort of oversight, then the information could be handled responsibly by readers.
I think including this sort of section is basically a bait and switch—it allows the author to assert positions, potentially persuading people of them, but if challenged on the LLM slop to hide behind “oh yeah but I said I didn’t mean that”.
I have now reviewed and edited the relevant section.
My feeling when I drafted it was as per Ozzie’s comment—as long as I was transparent, I thought it was OK for readers to judge the quality of the content as they see fit.
Part of my rationale for this being OK was that it was right at the end of a 15-page write-up. Larks wrote that many people will read this post. I hope that’s true, but I didn’t expect that many people would read the very last bits of the appendix. The fact that someone noticed this at all, let alone almost immediately after this post was published, was an update for me.
Hence my decision to review and edit that section at the end of the document, and remove the disclaimer.
I actually like that you did this; there’s such little information on the news “firehose” right now that a possible accuracy/content tradeoff is entirely reasonable!