Before you start to feel smug about this and think you're above it.
I've read three blog posts in as many days where their authors quietly reflect that Claude is so good that it has effectively hijacked their own decision making processes when they weigh the value of starting a project.
Do they embark on it, or hand it over to Claude, even if the process is mind-numbing and you learn nothing?
Read it. Was not impressed. While the hypothesis is sound ( and likely to be true ), the paper itself is a microcosm of everything wrong with papers these days. For example, referenced "Web Appendix Table W3", which promises seed prompts is missing..
You do not care about foundational aspect of the paper? Bold. The theory may be interesting AND wrong based just on their initial seeds. Are you ok with that?
Doesn't sound like there was any incentive to get the answer right, so why would anyone bother fact checking AI answers. These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
>These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
Or they're trying to show how the "path of least resistance" applies to AI use, but you took the path of least resistance and made an uncharitable interpretation of their paper :)
Before you start to feel smug about this and think you're above it.
I've read three blog posts in as many days where their authors quietly reflect that Claude is so good that it has effectively hijacked their own decision making processes when they weigh the value of starting a project.
Do they embark on it, or hand it over to Claude, even if the process is mind-numbing and you learn nothing?
Read it. Was not impressed. While the hypothesis is sound ( and likely to be true ), the paper itself is a microcosm of everything wrong with papers these days. For example, referenced "Web Appendix Table W3", which promises seed prompts is missing..
Couldn't care less for a missing table or figure, or even for the whole paper. The theory is interesting in itself.
You do not care about foundational aspect of the paper? Bold. The theory may be interesting AND wrong based just on their initial seeds. Are you ok with that?
Doesn't sound like there was any incentive to get the answer right, so why would anyone bother fact checking AI answers. These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
On brand for Wharton I guess.
>These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
Or they're trying to show how the "path of least resistance" applies to AI use, but you took the path of least resistance and made an uncharitable interpretation of their paper :)
The Wharton paper this is taken from was discussed last month (142 comments):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47467913
Then you "hack" System 3 and direct everyone to buy your advertiser's product. -- Someone at Google, probably.
LLMs are the final form of advertising and propaganda. Seamless and undisclosed. There's no possibility that it isn't the endgame.
“Step right up, We’re doing a new training run, and offering positive brand sentiment to the 1000 highest bidders.”
[dead]