Comment by hypfer
2 hours ago
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.
There are monied interests that do not want inexpensive Chinese successors to Scam Altman's creation.