maybe this could be avoided if academic papers came with some sort of short summary. if this were provided by the authors, then we wouldn't need to rely on expensive and unreliable tools to generate them. think how convenient it would be if the authors put these summaries right near the start of the paper!!
https://www.sigarch.org/the-role-of-llms-in-academic-reviewing/
"What began as an intriguing toy for autocomplete has evolved into sophisticated tools capable of summarizing research papers, drafting technical arguments, and even simulating expert‑level discussion."
No they bloody haven't, and if you think they have it's because the boosters have successfully gaslighted you.
@regehr perhaps we stop teaching people to write in the most obscure way possible in science
I say that despite having been quite good at it - it's inaccessible to most people, including many other scientists.
Make the 'lay summary' (don't like the word) actually normal language. That almost everyone can understand.
Stop hiding scientific results behind layers of academese, shibboleth and obscurity.
We could have started doing this years ago but no (yes I got the joke)
@regehr my head wants to explode, LLMs are legitimately not good at assessing correctness or correspondence between code and natural language...
I have the privilege of being able to just not submit to a venue that asks LLMs to assess correctness of submissions, but that's going to be a mess for junior people if they actually do that
@regehr Agassiz was great in the abstract but not in the concrete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz#/media/File:Agassiz_in_the_Concrete.jpg
Aurojit Panda
John Regehr
Rob Ricci
Robin
Jon
Fritz Adalis
sherman651
Shriram Krishnamurthi
Torf und Schnee
Xarn
Resuna
⏚ Antoine Chambert-Loir
Noodlemaz
Simon Brooke
HoldMyType
MarjorieR
Colin Gordon
europlus 
mio
Stuart Marks