Exactly! And it was obviouslly written by (or with help of) a LLM. The first definition is even gramatically incorrect! Lets see what gemini thinks of the first paragraph if I force it to criticize it:

https://g.co/gemini/share/97c1d475aae1

Besides the obvious irony of criticizing a suspect LLM work and then asking another LLM to criticize it to prove it, your question was loaded:

"Explain why this paragraph is contrived and grammatically incorrect: [..]"

Current LLMs are trained to follow your leash.

I don't see any grammatical errors, just some possible missing punctuation. The arguments Gemini gives are just opinions about stylistic choices. Could you point out the specific grammar mistakes you see?

These are just grumpy posters, while I was not expecting the post to get all of this attention, its usually the ones who are reactive or trolling who respond here. They want to find so many mistakes just so they don't have to admit to themselves that they don't understand what the project is or how it works.

You've taken this ubiquitous phenomenon into account in the design I hope?

Our entire system is trained on LLMs, so yes LLMs are used to write summaries. Thanks for the feedback.

Now ask it why the paragraph is well written.

thx for response. I think it is pretty straight forward on the site. project is in stealth mode. "Conversational Game Theory" is pretty straightforward.

Stealth mode project that is publishing whitepapers to HN and replying in comments about its stealthiness?

Double-secret misdirection. The new stealth!

I think it is silly to load everything up with so much suspicion.

yes, i often seed on social media as the project evolves to get feedback.

The company is in stealth mode, thanks for clarifying.

It's saying, "AI needs consistent, scored rules for communication, so it can self-train being a person the same way it self-trains winning games of Go" (sure).

Then it says "we have those rules" (they don't) "and they work great" (they don't) "and you can't see them" (sure).

Hi. Thank you for your response. All of our work is transparent, if there is something you want to see or know, reach out on linked in or twitter. Other than that I think you are misrepresenting what is on the site, it says nothing of what you write

You built a platform to facilitate and track discussions, for people and AI.

That's great, and maybe it's the future of harnessing AI, but it's not:

- Conversational Game Theory

- a dynamic equilibrium between computational, cognitive and psychological states

- a public good that functions as an enhancement layer

- immutable to subversion from bad faith actors

The comments in this thread are such a fantastic demonstration of the dire need for tools and technology like this....and a good learning experience for the devs!!

Hi, thanks for your response. If you reach out to the founder on linked in, he is happy to give you a demonstration.

There isn't any buzz words being used, you could simply look up with the words mean if you don't understand them.

"Conversational" is plain english for conversation. "Game Theory" implies what it says.

Which words made it so challenging? Let me know and I can explain.