Generic, yes. Tangent, no: the article is of the form "we tried this thing that obviously doesn't work, and it doesn't work, and we are surprised". A comment of the form "of course it still doesn't work, you numpty" could be nicer, but it's not a tangent.
I fully understand moderating away "LLMs bad" comments in response to an article that isn't a snowclone, but removing just the low-effort negative comments, without removing the low-effort positive comments, introduces a bias that risks exacerbating a happy death spiral.
It's not sustainable to have to read the latest doomed attempt in enough detail to write a specific and substantial criticism, when we know that it's doomed from the start. Prompt engineering is, in many cases, little more than p-hacking, so many claims of positive results are still actually negative results. Why are generic comments forbidden on generic articles?
I am generally a fan of the news guidelines. Their bias towards the perspective that every article is valuable is a feature, not a bug. But this particular topic feels to me like a failure mode of that very feature – and an easily-exploitable failure mode, at that.
I'm all-but-certain this isn't the first instance of this failure mode (just the first I've noticed), and that you've written multiple relevant essays in the past three months. Most likely the flagging was all users, and you're just here to explain the rules. I don't think it's worth changing the news guidelines over. I still think the moderation decision is wrong.
I fully understand moderating away "LLMs bad" comments in response to an article that isn't a snowclone, but removing just the low-effort negative comments, without removing the low-effort positive comments, introduces a bias that risks exacerbating a happy death spiral.
It's not sustainable to have to read the latest doomed attempt in enough detail to write a specific and substantial criticism, when we know that it's doomed from the start. Prompt engineering is, in many cases, little more than p-hacking, so many claims of positive results are still actually negative results. Why are generic comments forbidden on generic articles?
I am generally a fan of the news guidelines. Their bias towards the perspective that every article is valuable is a feature, not a bug. But this particular topic feels to me like a failure mode of that very feature – and an easily-exploitable failure mode, at that.
I'm all-but-certain this isn't the first instance of this failure mode (just the first I've noticed), and that you've written multiple relevant essays in the past three months. Most likely the flagging was all users, and you're just here to explain the rules. I don't think it's worth changing the news guidelines over. I still think the moderation decision is wrong.