pull down to refresh

write down at least one way in which the response could have been better.
I really like this point! That allows for a lot of critical thinking while using LLMs.

Something I've found useful (better results for me with Grok than with GPT or Qwen) is to feed it my text (as in from 7) and ask how that fits in with general consensus on the topic. With Grok what usually happens is tons of search and until now it's been reasonable in explaining it. It even once said "this would be an opinion you'd expect to be consensus within digital nomad society" which was creepy haha
I think for me, even reminding them to check for the existence of the article and the reputability of the journal is a major plus, something that many don't realize you need to do.
Talking through this made me realize that I have to also emphasize that the article actually has to be published, and that websites like arxiv.org host both published and unpublished articles
reply
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 1h
websites like arxiv.org host both published and unpublished articles
Good point. Are there any reliable stats about what makes it from pre-print to full publication?
reply
There probably are, but I'm not aware of them. I've seen some pretty wacky stuff on arxiv before. There's a lot of gold in it, but a lot of stuff they don't quality-check as well.
reply
I didn't even know they did any checks!
reply