Was there a specific claim or section that didn’t land for you? I found the ideas interesting and consistent with the author’s prior work on these topics. Any thoughts on the substance?
I agree with Nick here. About the substance, the ideas are interesting but the claims are too bold for what supports them, a typical feature of LLM written text.
I agree with Nick here. About the substance, the ideas are interesting but the claims are too bold for what supports them, a typical feature of LLM written text.
I’ve said this before and got it completely wrong, but this feels like an LLM wrote a lot of it.
Was there a specific claim or section that didn’t land for you? I found the ideas interesting and consistent with the author’s prior work on these topics. Any thoughts on the substance?
I agree with Nick here. About the substance, the ideas are interesting but the claims are too bold for what supports them, a typical feature of LLM written text.
I agree with Nick here. About the substance, the ideas are interesting but the claims are too bold for what supports them, a typical feature of LLM written text.