Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I prefer reading the LLM output for accessibility reasons. And that's completely fine! If you prefer to read CVEs that way, nobody is going to stop you from piping all CVE descriptions you're interested in through a LLM. However, having it processed by a LLM is essentially a one-way operation. If some people prefer the original and some others prefer the LLM output, the obvious move is to share the original with th…
Well, no. Because authors do two things typically when they use an LLM for editing: - iterate multiple rounds - approve the final edit as their message I can’t do either of those things myself — and your post implicitly assumes there’s underlying content prior to the LLM process; but it’s likely to be iterated interactions with an LLM that produces content at all — ie, there never exists a human-written rough draft o…
Sometimes I question my sanity these days when my (internally) valid thoughts seem to swoosh by externally.