[nfc]

[flagged]

[dcre]

I don’t know what the guidelines are, but this is not helpful or accurate as a characterization of the interview. If anything, Weatherby is saying exactly what you say he gets wrong: “LLMs are not the total distribution, but they’re a far larger chunk of it than we’ve ever before been able to see or play with.” I am no anti-LLM guy but this is an embarrassing way to use them.

[nfc]

Thank you for your reply, I may have misinterpreted what Weatherby was saying and I admit I did not spend enough time reading it. I've re-skimmed it and think you may be right.

With respect to the use of LLMs for my original comment. I think however that this is a useful use for them. It started a conversation on an article that had not comments on it and helped at least one person (me but hopefully others too) to get a better understanding of what was said (thanks to your comment). But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, specially after already having been wrong once in this thread :)

[ThrowawayR2]

Please do not post LLM generated summaries. The HN moderation team has said in the past that "HN has never allowed bots or generated comments." in response to a question about ChatGPT generated postings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747

[gessha]

If I wanted an LLM summary, I would’ve plugged the link into an LLM. Please don’t pollute the commons.

[layer8]

They didn’t summarize the article, they used an LLM to summarize their thoughts on the article.