LLMs are 5/10 writers. So the fact that you can reliably improve on the explanations in papers and books by asking an LLM to summarize them is a huge condemnation of academic writing.

The wisdom that "LLMs just predict text" is true, but misleading in its incompleteness. "As an AI language model trained by OpenAI..." is an astoundingly poor prediction of what a typical human would write. Let's resolve this contradiction — a thread:

"The reason humans are so useful is not mainly their raw intelligence. It’s their ability to build up context, interrogate their own failures, and pick up small improvements and efficiencies as they practice a task." I argue that LLMs currently lack this fundamental capability