Did we really need an LLM summary of an otherwise already short article? Why do you assume it’s even able to correctly transcribe the point behind the article in the first place? For example, it says:
The article claims that these changes are harmful to the Fediverse for several reasons:
They violate the Fediverse’s ethos of user autonomy and privacy, by forcing users to give up their data and follow Threads’ rules.
The article never said this. If anything, the author of the article even acquiesces "Granted, these sound like basic table stakes for federation to work well within the Fediverse. Most Mastodon servers collect roughly about the same amount of data for basic features to work correctly. ".
So how can this then be “violating the fediverse’s ethos” when it is something the fediverse already does? The issue is not trusting facebook with this data, not the principle of data collection itself. Because of subtle nuance like this I’d say the summary is just misrepresenting the original point and just generating incorrect clickbait. There’s other stuff in it that just seems made up since it’s not mentioned in the article at all.
TL;DR Fuck LLMs, stop thinking they understand context. They are just glorified autocomplete algorithms.
A huge number of humans were just waiting for a computer to get just good enough at simulating coherence that they could abandon critical thinking forever. People are utterly opposed to using their brains at all.
Did we really need an LLM summary of an otherwise already short article? Why do you assume it’s even able to correctly transcribe the point behind the article in the first place? For example, it says:
The article never said this. If anything, the author of the article even acquiesces "Granted, these sound like basic table stakes for federation to work well within the Fediverse. Most Mastodon servers collect roughly about the same amount of data for basic features to work correctly. ".
So how can this then be “violating the fediverse’s ethos” when it is something the fediverse already does? The issue is not trusting facebook with this data, not the principle of data collection itself. Because of subtle nuance like this I’d say the summary is just misrepresenting the original point and just generating incorrect clickbait. There’s other stuff in it that just seems made up since it’s not mentioned in the article at all.
TL;DR Fuck LLMs, stop thinking they understand context. They are just glorified autocomplete algorithms.
A huge number of humans were just waiting for a computer to get just good enough at simulating coherence that they could abandon critical thinking forever. People are utterly opposed to using their brains at all.
This is why I die a little inside each time I see someone post an LLM summary of an article.
As if generating it in the first place and then reading that is somehow less work than just reading the article to begin with.
Yeah, my bad. Should have paid more attention. The summary did seem like it was spiced up with some hallucinations.