LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#2[dead]
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#3The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#4The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
I understand the answer to the question I'm about to ask, but how does any human read that abstract and not think, "This is entirely too many colons."
EDIT: And Pangram agrees that the abstract is 100% AI generated.
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#5The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
I had to use an AI to undertand the abstract made by AI…
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#6The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
Interesting. My initial thought was “this is so horribly written it must be human”
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#7The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
"Verify Presence, Not Absence" is very LLM-coded all on its own.
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#8The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
The entire paper is almost certainly Claude-generated, given the clear Claude-speak throughout. It seems like they didn’t even try to have Claude write a polished paper: it reads like Claude writing up a lengthy report, down to the needless sectioning with idiosyncratic title language. There appears to be no disclosure, and the author contribution section appears to falsely claim that a particular author wrote the text.
I know arXiv has taken some measures to combat spam like this, but it seems like they’ll need to do more. There’s just very little barrier now to creating giant slop papers like this and then dumping them anywhere that won’t reject them. It is an insult to everyone’s time, and I can’t imagine they expect people to actually read this. If the expectation is that everyone will use an LLM to interpret it, then maybe they should have at least had a few more rounds of tightening and polishing the paper, even via LLM, to save the redundant token use.
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#9The fact that even the abstract is very clearly AI-generated does not fill me with confidence in the rigour of the research.
I understand the answer to the question I'm about to ask, but how does any human read that abstract and not think, "This is entirely too many colons." EDIT: And Pangram agrees that the abstract is 100% AI generated.
While I agree I have to say that AI-detectors are complete bullshit
Re: LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes
#10[dead]