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]