This guy generally does interesting work, but he's used an LLM to analyze the trends in a "creation science" journal over time, and I just don't think LLMs are effective for this kind of statistical task. Or have a missed something and they can count now?Thought I'd ask before leaving a comment about the possible issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHT-wAUYI0
I mean LLMs are based on statistics, and they will produce results that look like frequency charts. But these charts only attempt to approximate the expected content. They aren't based on counting articles that meet any set of criteria. It's... nonsense, and not even people who pride themselves on spotting nonsense seem to understand this.
grimacing
Seems like the more people pride themselves on spotting nonsense, the more they seem to be advocating this shit these days. People have entered into this weird phase of mass AI hysteria and only those that don't use it at all are sitting here like... Am I crazy or are the hoards of AI enthusiasts crazy? It's gotta be one or the other.