> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get started are now in your way.

> Zig takes a different path. It reveals complexity—and then gives you the tools to master it.

> This book will take you from Hello, world! to building systems that cross-compile to any platform, manage memory with surgical precision, and generate code at compile time. You will learn not just how Zig works, but why it works the way it does. Every allocation will be explicit. Every control path will be visible. Every abstraction will be precise, not vague.

But sadly people like the prompter of this book will lie and pretend to have written things themselves that they did not. First three paragraphs by the way, and a bingo for every sign of AI.

▲

cycomanic 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These posts are getting old.

I had a discussion on some other submission a couple of weeks back, where several people were arguing "it's obviously AI generated" (the style btw was completely different to this, quite a few explicitives...). When I put the the text in 5 random AI detectors the argument who except for one (which said mixed, 10% AI or so) all said 100% human I was being down voted and the argument became "AI detection tools can detect AI" but somehow the people claim there are 100% clear telltale signs which says it's AI (why those detection tools can detect them is baffling to me).

I have the feeling that the whole "it's AI" stick has become a synonym for I don't like this writing style.

It really does not add to the discussion. If people would post immediately "there's spelling mistakes this is rubbish", they would rightfully get down voted, but somehow saying "it's AI" is acceptable. Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it? So what is your point?

	▲	spacechild1 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Check out the other examples presented in this thread or read some of the chapters. I'm pretty sure the author used LLMs to generate at least parts of this text. In this case this would be particularly outrageous since the author explicitly advertizes the content as 100% handwritten. > Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it? Personally, I don't want to read AI generated texts. I would appreciate if people were upfront about their LLM usage. At the very least they shouldn't lie about it.
	▲	agucova 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I ran the introduction chapter through Pangram [1], which is one of the most reliable AI-generated text classifiers out there [2] (with a benchmarked accuracy of 99.85% over long-form text), and it gives high confidence for it having been AI-generated. It's also very intuitively obvious if you play a lot with LLMs. I have no problem at all reading AI-generated content if it's good, but I don't appreciate dishonesty. [1]: https://www.pangram.com/ [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.14873

▲

Brian_K_White 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right in those same first few paragraphs... "...hiding something from you. Because they are."

Would most LLMs have written that invalid fragment sentence "Because they are." ?

I don't think you have enough to go on to make this accusation.

▲

assbuttbuttass 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that fragment in particular screams LLM to me. It's the exact kind of meaningless yet overly dramatic slop that LLMs love

	▲	25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

mef51 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The em dashes?

▲

9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

James_K 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's also the classic “it's not just X, it's Y”, adjective overuse, rule of 3, total nonsense (manage memory with surgical precision? what does that mean?), etc. One of these is excusable, but text entirely comprised of AI indicators is either deliberately written to mimic AI style, or the product of AI.

	▲	osigurdson 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"not just x but y" is definitely a tell tale AI marker. But, people can write that as well. Also our writing styles can be influenced as we've seen so much AI content. Anyway, if someone says they didn't use AI, I would personally give them the benefit of the doubt for a while at least.
	▲	ants_everywhere 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		this construction is familiar to anyone who has taken a course on writing post middle or high school. The formal version is "not only... but also" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/..., which I personally use regularly but I often write formally even in informal settings. "not just... but" is just the less formal version. Google ngrams shows the "not just ... but" construction has a sharp increase starting in 2000. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=not+just++but... Same with "not only ... but also" https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=not+only++but... Like many scholarly linguistic construction, this is one many of us saw in latin class with non solum ... sed etium or non modo ... sed etium: https://issuu.com/uteplib/docs/latin_grammar/234. I didn't take ancient Greek, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's also a version there. More info - https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/not-just-something-but-som... - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/not%20just - https://www.grammarly.com/blog/writing-techniques/parallelis... - https://www.crockford.com/style.html - https://englishan.com/correlative-conjunctions-definition-ru...