Couldn't they have had an LLM proof-read they're paper?
Then I started wondering if this is going to become the new anti-AI marker. AI-written papers use "delves", "underscores" and "showcasing" too much. Avoid those words, throw in some errors and readers will think your paper was written by humans.
In any case this is part of the 2022-2023 volume: https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/volumes/16/
(in particular https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol16/FrontMatterVol16No11.pdf -- July 2023)
The nice part is that this information is standardized through the digital object identifier (doi).
Ex: 10.14778/3611479.3611527
This doi takes you to:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3611479.3611527
In general if you have a DOI and you want a URL you can go to https://dx.doi.org/ to resolve it.
The basic problem with that is that even with 5 9s of good results, that remainder still gets you very public cases of "put glue on your pizza". And we're not even at 5 9s yet.
My experience has been that it really is a huge improvement, you don't need to guess which words were used to describe the issue, you just describe your issue, tell the system what you want, and the results are there. Chat's been busy and you remember an issue was raised in a thread a week ago? With traditional search, good luck finding it. Now, I just write "Tom raised this week an issue in this chat about something not working with reminders??" and the results are there.
Someone at the company uses it to manage Dungeons and Dragons play nights, they document their world, their plays, etc, he wrote probably a smaller book worth of content, then can ask AI what happened 4 months ago with a characters instead of trying to search.
When does the LLM think that will happen, please ask it I'm curious