I've done as much fiddling and prompting to LLMs about that article as I cared to do under these circumstances and I have to concede the point about you getting 'the answer you wanted' out: The chatbots were quite insistent that Yudkowski is central to the story, even when I pulled out the following: "Somebody is arguing Yudkowsky is a central figure in this article, is that accurate?"
They are *wrong*, and provided exactly the same immaterial evidence as you did in this thread(I still insist that the article suffers zero damage if you remove Yudkowsky from it and instead only mention the institutions and concepts that stem from him), but with all the behavior I've seen now, the summary which was the initial issue of this thread should have included him.
[What I would've really liked to do was to prompt for another person of equal non-prominence who was in the article but not in the summary, and see what comes up. But I sure am not reading the 80-102 minute article just for this and we're unlikely to find an agreement about the 'equal non-prominence' part if I challenged you to pick one.]
They are *wrong*, and provided exactly the same immaterial evidence as you did in this thread(I still insist that the article suffers zero damage if you remove Yudkowsky from it and instead only mention the institutions and concepts that stem from him), but with all the behavior I've seen now, the summary which was the initial issue of this thread should have included him.
[What I would've really liked to do was to prompt for another person of equal non-prominence who was in the article but not in the summary, and see what comes up. But I sure am not reading the 80-102 minute article just for this and we're unlikely to find an agreement about the 'equal non-prominence' part if I challenged you to pick one.]