upvote

points

by crazygringo5 days ago |
comments
upvoteby zacmps5 days ago|
next
[-]
LLM summaries of papers often make overly broad claims [1].

I don't think this is a good example personally.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00025

reply
upvoteby crazygringo5 days ago|
parent|
[-]
When there's nothing else to go on, it's still more useful than nothing.

The story was being upvoted and on the front page, but with no substantive comments, clearly because nobody understood what the significance of the paper was supposed to be.

I mean, HN comments are wrong all the time too. But if an LLM summary can at least start the conversation, I'm not really worried if its summary isn't 100% faithful.

reply
upvoteby Rarebox5 days ago|
prev|
[-]
That's a pretty good example. The summary is actually useful, yet it still annoys me.

But I'm not usually reading the comments to learn, it's just entertainment (=distraction). And similar to images or videos, I find human-created content more entertaining.

One thing to make such posts more palatable could be if the poster added some contribution of their own. In particular, they could state whether the AI summary is accurate according to their understanding.

reply
upvoteby crazygringo5 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I definitely read the comments to learn. I love when there's a post about something I didn't know about, and I love when HN'ers can explain details that the post left confusing.

If I'm looking for entertainment, HN is not exactly my first stop... :P

reply