alt Hacker NewsI very specifically said I read 25 pages of it in the first post of this thread. I didn’t go back, I haven’t looked at the paper since yesterday.
I read their methods and their explanation and judged them to be lacking.
The fact is, they did not measure that LLMs prefer LLM authored resumes, but that is what their paper stated.
They measured that LLMs prefer LLM authored executive summaries, which is a weaker claim.
The references start at page 28, and then the rest is appendices. If you'd read those last 3 pages you could say you'd read it all, and then maybe you could have an opinion about it.
You have to separate those two issues though. You spew out an opinion about a paper you haven't read. That's bad no matter what your opinion is. Don't blast your opinion out into the world if you haven't bothered to actually think about it first. That's one issue. A second issue is then that I think your opinion, that you didn't read the paper to make up, is wrong. They have in fact provided a justification, you just don't feel like it counts. I decided to join those two, because not reading the justification would explain why you didn't believe they had one, but that coupling isn't necessary.
They did still provide a justification, you said they don't. That's wrong. Now you're saying that you don't find it convincing, that's perfectly OK, but you then extend that claim into an accusation of misreporting. That's where you go off the rails again. They are accurately reporting what they have observed and concluded. They have provided justification for that conclusion, and all of that is, to my eyes, reported accurately.
The reason you can, accurately and correctly, claim
> They measured that LLMs prefer LLM authored executive summaries
Is exactly because their paper accurately states what they are measuring and why they believe the conclusion extends to a more general claim. You treat it as though it's some bombshell discovery, but they tell you, right in the fucking text.
If I had to revise me opinion, I guess I'd say I now no longer believe you didn't read the paper, but instead that you don't know HOW to read scientific papers.