[smakt]

One has to be the special kind of stupid that is blinded by efficiency promises from the LLM Church to think the article is any worth.

It's the usual jargon soup. Publish a vetted paper with repeatable steps instead of a hyped-up, garbage, supposed 100x productivity bomb.

And his best result is mechanical findings from where the LLM got the highest correlations between its vectors: Bravo; there's always going to be a top item in any ordered list, but it doesn't make it automatically interesting. Reading literature is about witnessing the journey the characters take. Reading technical material is about memorizing enough of it. In both cases the material has to go through a brain. I find it idiotic to assign any value to outputs like "Oh King Lear's X is highly correlated to Antigone's Y"