Comment by croon
2 days ago
People call some work AI slop "without even reading it" when the intention/substance of the work might exist somewhere buried within a wall of impenetrable LLM text (aka "the slop").
Good AI output is indistinguishable from human output. The whiff you mention is the reasoning pleonasm and tautology (intended) escaping into the output and the "author" not proof-reading/editing it out.
But it also happens in many other contexts where that is not true, such as this one right now. Bringing me back to my point that it’s not to discriminate and clarify between good and bad, but to muddy the water.
We can't argue the latter without quantifying the former. All terms are misused by someone, but if it's statistically insignificant that's not an issue. I'm not convinced this one is sufficiently misused to detract from the common definition.
How is it not true here? Plenty of papers in this release are hard to follow, use non-standard terminology, make hard to understand leaps, and so forth.
This is a feat of superhuman intelligence, completed by a state of the art computer system. It's just done something humans long thought impossible (again), and the future is looking more like the ones science fiction has dreamt of for decades.
Sorry you don't like the phrasing.
2 replies →