Then why should we treat Wikipedia any differently than we treat Meta, OpenAI, Google, Apple etc? When they're just in the business of making money and the "mission" can always just be another facade similar to OpenAI?
Do you seriously read the article and not see that it is extremely low signal-to-noise? And full of non-sequiturs and strange unnecessary clarifications? And passed off as a research project.
“Claude, write an article about why agents use grep instead of LSP”
This would have saved everyone the pain of reading this.
As another user pointed out: “Training support is a hypothesis consistent with these results, not something this study proves.” is not a sentence a human would write, nor is it a sentence that a human should ever be made to read. I apologize for reproducing it; the article is chock full of these “gems”.
100%. This article is written by AI. The problem is it makes you doubt the whole thing: Did the person behind this do any work at all? Or is this just content marketing for an AI project - something that used to require time and effort - but now can be done by anyone with a click on a button.
Too bad. Because this is sort of an interesting subject.
Have you never read human writing before? Humans write all kinds of confusingly worded things all the time - it’s why we have editors even for writers who are the cream of the crop.
But also that sentence is entirely fine as it is to me, it’s pretty simple and clear isn’t it?
That reads like one of those commonly held tropes that are not true. Like "back in my day it was possible to raise a family, buy a house, two cars and a boat on one salary." When the reality for the majority was both parents worked.
In the metro I live in of >2 million I have come across numerous men and women with their shit together at home and numerous men and women who live like feral dogs despite appearing at work with their shit together.
And most of the world is still taking crazy pills.
reply