It’s something I like (math and networks) on a subject I like (football) but the AI tone is so heavy I get turned off. It’s far beyond my load-bearing capacity.
(tldr - a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random, lowering average points taken away and thus harming chances for this ingroup and increasing chances for the outgroup; it’s interesting stuff; the group differs per year)
> a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random
To the point they have rules that prevent the same game from being played by two teams in the same home stadium for 3 straight years. Not sure how they handle this. Do they just redraw if that pairing is drawn, do the hold back one of the team's ball from the bag, or do they manually set one of the teams against another from the pool before drawing the remaining?
This is a fairly cynical way to look at it. Consider the scenarios:
Pre-LLM, most researchers wouldn't have bothered writing it up outside of a journal. They're extremely busy people, and it takes a lot of effort to write a well polished post. They'll either hand that task off to a grad student or (much more likely) simply not post it anywhere.
Thanks to LLMs, we know about it. I've often been critical of academia for not making their work accessible to the masses. This is a step in that direction.
Existing academics' writing is very poor. Did you try reading the average Academic Joe's essays in the past? Much poorer quality (with much poorer images). LLM-speak is a step up.
I am a researcher. Researchers, now more than ever with AI, have plenty of time to write something. The lift of writing is never the hard part, anyways.
When I was in grad school at a top tier university, academics never spent time writing anything but grants (or, occasionally, lecture notes). If they really felt they needed to (e.g. pressure to publish in IEEE Spectrum), they got an underling to do it for them and simply edited it.
Academic writing (as in journals) is pretty bad. This is way better.
Asimov joked that when it was time to write his thesis, he worried that he wouldn't be able to write as poorly as is expected in academia given that he had spent most of the last decade trying to improve his writing.
It’s something I like (math and networks) on a subject I like (football) but the AI tone is so heavy I get turned off. It’s far beyond my load-bearing capacity.
(tldr - a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random, lowering average points taken away and thus harming chances for this ingroup and increasing chances for the outgroup; it’s interesting stuff; the group differs per year)
> a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random
To the point they have rules that prevent the same game from being played by two teams in the same home stadium for 3 straight years. Not sure how they handle this. Do they just redraw if that pairing is drawn, do the hold back one of the team's ball from the bag, or do they manually set one of the teams against another from the pool before drawing the remaining?
If the draw is truly random there will always be some outlier stats. Their 25/26 example, the 5 teams are from pots 1,2,3,3,4 so it’s pretty even
Yes, same. Initially this seemed like an article I should love, but it was basically impossible to get through, so I stopped reading.
Impossible to read the slop wall and find the interesting bits. “Unusually” boring because “this distinction matters”
Shame, it's a cool idea, but the writing is so full of claudism's my mind skims over it completely.
Bit of an embarrassment to publish that as a published researcher, to be honest.
This is a fairly cynical way to look at it. Consider the scenarios:
Pre-LLM, most researchers wouldn't have bothered writing it up outside of a journal. They're extremely busy people, and it takes a lot of effort to write a well polished post. They'll either hand that task off to a grad student or (much more likely) simply not post it anywhere.
Thanks to LLMs, we know about it. I've often been critical of academia for not making their work accessible to the masses. This is a step in that direction.
Existing academics' writing is very poor. Did you try reading the average Academic Joe's essays in the past? Much poorer quality (with much poorer images). LLM-speak is a step up.
I am a researcher. Researchers, now more than ever with AI, have plenty of time to write something. The lift of writing is never the hard part, anyways.
When I was in grad school at a top tier university, academics never spent time writing anything but grants (or, occasionally, lecture notes). If they really felt they needed to (e.g. pressure to publish in IEEE Spectrum), they got an underling to do it for them and simply edited it.
It’s a step down. This is not efficient writing. It would rank as very bad academic writing indeed.
It’s not even good for academia, journals are flooded with slop.
Academic writing (as in journals) is pretty bad. This is way better.
Asimov joked that when it was time to write his thesis, he worried that he wouldn't be able to write as poorly as is expected in academia given that he had spent most of the last decade trying to improve his writing.
[flagged]