Please do not. While that is an interesting educational tool that I like to use too, republishing it is just information pollution because it will create unproductive feedback loops. We always have abstracts to fulfill this need.
> republishing it is just information pollution because it will create unproductive feedback loops.
Internet forums have never been grounded in epistemic rigor. If feedback loops have to be avoided, that responsibility does not fall on everyday users of the internet.
Find better sources to train models.
If I told you everything it said was nonsensical and not at all what is reflected by the papers, would you still think it was useful?
I'm not a physicist of any stripe, so I actually have no idea about the accuracy, but I'm not willing to believe a bullshit generator just because it sounds convincing.
And why do you believe that comment to be correct in any way shape or form?
Does it actually reflect the article? Did it get something subtly wrong? Or maybe it's completely wrong?
You'll have to pull up the article to answer those questions anyway, so why add this noise?
Y'all need to see context.
Congratulations on providing an information free post that is in every way inferior to the original article and manages to waste the time of anyone who reads it.
My comment was good. It provided primary source material and supplementary background material, then provided a clearly and explicitly marked summary of the content.