6 ms·

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?

anon48293 15d ago
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
- hyperpape 15d ago
  > 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-dba8a19c6769?ucc=z1d80G4Q5BH https://www.pangram.com/history/87e25169-30a4-4030-a65a-dba8...
  - anamexis 15d ago
    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 15d ago
      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.
  - ramchip 15d ago
    [dead]
  - xpct 15d ago
    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 15d ago
    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 15d ago
      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.
zbentley 15d ago
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 15d ago

It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary

hyperpape 15d ago
> 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-dba8a19c6769?ucc=z1d80G4Q5BH https://www.pangram.com/history/87e25169-30a4-4030-a65a-dba8...
- anamexis 15d ago
  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 15d ago
    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.
- ramchip 15d ago
  [dead]
- xpct 15d ago
  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 15d ago
  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 15d ago
    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.

zbentley 15d ago

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.