| |
| ▲ | tokenscoper 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | For me, it was this part of the paragraph:
> There is no atlas, so a hundred thousand CJK glyphs cost a font's worth of outline data, not an atlas the size of a video. Text can change every frame at no baking cost, which is exactly what you want for live data, user input, and localized content. And it all happens in a single draw with an ordinary fragment shader, no vendor extension required. Specifically, these sentence structures:
1. ... so <blah> costs <blah>, not <blah>.
2. And <blah>, no <blah>.
3. ... fixed resolution ahead of time, which quietly ... | |
| ▲ | nuxi 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stuff like this is a giveaway for me: > Drawing it on a GPU, crisply, at any size, under any 3D transform, while the text changes every frame, is not. > One small texture, resolution independent within reason, one cheap shader. English is not my native language, so I may be wrong here. | |
| ▲ | nurumaik 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For me it was "head to head" table. Typical complete nonsense llm-generated comparison table. Rest of the content is still quite good tbh, generated or not | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not arguing whether this article is or isn't LLM-generated, but I've seen skewed comparison tables like that in marketing since before LLMs. Pick a bunch of qualities skewed towards the new thing being proposed, highlight all the ways the new thing wins. |
| |
| ▲ | poly2it 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > A note on fairness, because the technical reader will ask. I think it's a mix of human and LLM writing. |
|
