| ▲ | hyperpape 2 days ago |
| I'm genuinely curious about the effect, but I simply don't have patience for the AI writing. Can anyone give an actual non-garbage explanation with some respect for the reader? Slightly less annoying summary from ChatGPT free: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9ac7a3-15a0-83eb-8c2a-6f72cd9beb.... Caveat emptor: it makes high level sense, but I haven’t thought about it in detail. |
|
| ▲ | marcianx 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm genuinely curious: I read through the article and the narrative felt deliberate and didn't trigger my AI-radar. What made you think it was AI written? |
| |
| ▲ | zbentley 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s rife with “and that’s the important thing. $thing”-type constructions. Human writing uses those much more sparingly and doesn’t separate them into two sentences as often. It has a lot of “subject change: teaser” constructions, too. And overuse of bold and restatement. Could it be human? Sure. But it doesn’t seem likely to me. | |
| ▲ | anon48293 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary | | |
| ▲ | hyperpape 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer. > So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that. > That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code. > Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here. > What is not architecture specific is the logic. Here’s a segment flagged by Pangram: https://www.pangram.com/history/87e25169-30a4-4030-a65a-dba8... | | |
| ▲ | anamexis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know if it's AI or not, but if it is, it isn't egregious, and certainly not "garbage" or disrespectful to the reader. | | |
| ▲ | hyperpape 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I will admit I shouldn’t have said “garbage”, because it is too emotional. But I absolutely think it is bad for the reader, and deserves to be called out. Authors should know that it’s not good enough. |
| |
| ▲ | xpct 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think the Pangram result is shareable to others. "If you are sure the link is correct, please make sure you are logged in with the account associated with this result." | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even if that were AI (and I think there are better examples in the article to indicate that it is), why do you care if you just used AI anyway to summarize it anyway? | | |
| ▲ | hyperpape 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t really care that it’s AI, the problem is that it’s bad AI writing. The summary I shared is much more straightforward. It’s mediocre, but just barely good enough to extract the message without making me super annoyed. |
| |
| ▲ | ramchip 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you don't like AI writing, why are you on hacker news? Most of the articles posted are written by AI. |
| |
| ▲ | deathanatos 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Some of us have been here longer than AI. "To be intellectually stimulated" would be the why, which there used to be more of prior to the frontpage becoming riddled with AI slop. "HN is for conversation between humans" as the guidelines say, and though the guidelines imply that's towards comments, I'd prefer it to be towards submissions too, for the same reasons it was added for comments. I'm already at the point of "the reward/effort of HN is getting pretty low", but the question is, where to leave for? |
|
