Comment by monooso
3 hours ago
I think you've misunderstood the purpose of a lead (sic).
Per Merriam-Webster [^1], a lede is:
> the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story
(Emphasis mine)
You may prefer more matter-of-fact phrasing, of course, but criticising a lede for attempting to achieve its goal is unjustified.
A 'lede' is just an intentionally differentiated spelling of 'lead'; the origin of the word is just lead. Collins dictionary defines lede: a variant spelling of lead
TIL, thank you.
I think the criticism is less about whether the lede is good at achieving its goal and more about whether that goal is honorable in the first place.
So dismissing it on technicalities is for sure clever but also obvious and lame.
The Letter/spirit thing eventually got boring. Please find better material
I apologise if using words correctly is obvious and lame.
GP is explicitly criticising the language in the lede as being unsuitably vague, hence my reply.
As to the goal of the article, I fail to see what is dishonourable about comparing LLMs. You may consider the methodology flawed, but it's a perfectly respectable goal.
Sorry, was that another technicality? I'll try to find better material, just for you.
It’s the hardest part of an article if you ask me.
Filling it with slop constructs signals the reader no effort was made writing the article. So no effort should be put into reading it.
The rest of the article is equally flimsy. Great clickbait title, perhaps that is even harder than writing a lede.
I am not a native speaker :)