They asked whether this paper was worth reading, because the English wasn't conventional in their dialect.
I'm pointing out that that isn't a good way to screen papers, because most English speakers don't share the same dialect.
Perhaps unstated or understated is the implication that, were you to discard papers in this way, you're liable to miss out.
I'll leave it to you whether that added information. That wasn't really my goal in this case, my goal was to respond to the question in the manner I viewed appropriate. Feel free to downvote my comment if you don't feel it was appropriate or informative or otherwise didn't uphold whatever criteria you're judging it by.
> I'm pointing out that that isn't a good way to screen papers, because most English speakers don't share the same dialect.
You did not make that clear at all.
> Perhaps unstated or understated is the implication that, were you to discard papers in this way, you're liable to miss out.
Indeed, that implication was totally missing.
> Feel free to downvote my comment if you don't feel it was appropriate or informative or otherwise didn't uphold whatever criteria you're judging it by.
I would certainly do so. Like their paper, it is quite poor, and not helpful for this forum. Unfortunately, /u/dang has removed my ability to downvote.
Alrighty. Thanks for the feedback. Have a great day.
(For what it's worth, I often feel my comments are too long and wordy, and occasionally I've gotten feedback to that effect, so I was trying to be brief in my original comment.)
It's an observation, not an argument, but note that this is a paper about LLM mistakes. But if the language bothers you and you view LLMs as the solution, you're certainly free to feed it into an LLM yourself.
To be frank, I find it a little off-putting to suggest being a non-native English speaker is "no longer valid."
I'm not a native english speaker. For serious work, that is, anything that may be printed or published with my real name on it, I use grammar checks. That's the least I can do.
I found it somewhat charming that the authors, who express skepticism about the use of LLMs by novices, indeed stuck to their views and decided not to run their phrasings through an LLM. This will probably be one of the dwindling number of papers released each year with "fairly bad" grammar - and part of me wonders if we're losing something in the process of LLM-meditated homogenization.
In case, just in case (and to also show how lack of definition may trigger any weak interpretation), after suggestion from a nearby member, the idea would had been that today people could have sentences reformulated by language models: the composer intends to express a logic, so any translator would have to grasp said logic primarily and first.
