It does for me too. Especially the short parts with headings, the bold sentences in their own paragraph and especially formulations like "X isn't just... it's Y".
In other words, this website uses headings for sections, doesn't ramble, and has a single line of emphasis where you'd expect it. I wonder what style we'll have to adopt soon to avoid LLM witchhunt - live stream of consciousness ranting with transcript and typos?
To me this kind of use of AI (generating the whole article) is equivalent to a low-effort post. I also personally don't like this kind of writing, regardless of whether or not an AI generated it.
Imagine being a person like me who has always been expressing himself like that. Using em dash, too.
LLMs didn’t randomly invent their own unique style, they learned it from books. This is just how people write when they get slightly more literate than nowadays texting-era kids.
And these suspicions are in vain even if happen to be right this one time. LLMs are champions of copying styles, there is no problem asking one to slap Gen Z slang all over and finish the post with the phrase “I literally can’t! <sad-smiley>”. “Detecting LLMs” doesn’t get you ahead of LLMs, it only gets you ahead of the person using them. Why not appreciate example of concise and on-point self-expression and focus on usefulness of content?
My comment was not really meant as a criticism (of AI) but more of an agreement that I am also confident in the fact that the post is AI-generated (while the parent comment does not seem to be so confident).
But to add a personal comment or criticism, I don't like this style of writing. If you like prompt your AI to write in a better style which is easier on the eyes (and it works) then please, go ahead.
The most jarring point that they mentioned, having sudden one-off boldfaced sentences in their own paragraphs, is not something I had ever seen before LLMs. It's possible that this could be a habit humans have picked up from them and started adding it the middle of other text that similarly evokes all of the other LLM tropes, but it doesn't seem particularly likely.
Your point about being able to prompt LLMs to sound different is valid, but I'd argue that it somewhat misses the point (although largely because the point isn't being made precisely). If an LLM-generated blog post was actually crafted with care and intent, it would certainly be possible to make less obvious, but what people are likely actually criticizing is content that's produced in I'll call "default ChatGPT" style that overuses the stylistic elements that get brought up. The extreme density of certain patterns is a signal that the content might have been generated and published without much attention to detail. There's was already a huge amount of content out there even before generating it with LLMs became mainstream, so people will necessarily use heuristics to figure out if something is worth their time. The heuristic "heavy use of default ChatGPT style" is useful if it correlates with the more fundamental issues that the top-level comment of this thread points out, and it's clear that there's a sizable contingent of people who have experienced that this is the case.
> although largely because the point isn't being made precisely
I agree. I wasn't really trying to make a point. But yes, what I am implying is that posts that you can immediately recognize as AI are low effort posts, which are not worth my time.
While I agree that it's not important whether or not someone uses AI to improve a blog post or create code examples, this blog post seems like the output of the prompt "Write an interesting blog post about a goroutine leak". I don't have the expertise to verify if what is written is actually correct or makes sense, but based on the other comments there seems to be some confusion if what is written is actually content or also AI generated output.
I do have expertise in Go. The bug was real, and the fix makes sense (though I couldn't verify it, of course).
I just hope HN gets over the "but it might be AI!!" crap sooner rather than later and focuses on the actual content because these types of posts are never going away.
Personally, I just don't like the way this is written. As I said though, I am not an expert and so I may be outside the target group. I think that the original "this is AI" comment is an automatic response which alternatively carries the meaning "this is low-effort" and in that sense I still think that it is valid criticism.
I've done a similar fix, even a bit more interesting, however I wouldn't consider it worthy of writing a blog post, not to mention submitting it to HN.
This seems like an interesting problem and an interesting fix, but there is so much code and so little explanation that I am lost after "The Code That Looked Perfectly Fine". It also reads very much like AI. And FYI the "output" code blocks are (at least for me on Firefox) a dark gray on a darker gray background, so very unreadable.
Anybody who plays poker “optimally” is bound to lose money when they come up against anyone with skill. Once you know the strategy your opponent is employing you can play like you have anything. I believe I’ve won with 7,2 offsuite more than any other hand, because I played like I had the nuts.
This is completely wrong - the entire point of the Nash equilibrium solution (in the context of poker, at least) is that it is, at worst, EV-neutral even when your opponent has perfect knowledge of your strategy.
Your 72o comment indicates you are either playing with very weak players, or have gotten lucky, as in reasonably competitive games playing (and then full bluffing) 72o will be significantly negative EV. Try grinding that strategy at a public 10/20 table and you will be quickly butchered and sent back to the ATM.
There are numerous videos of high level professional poker players winning large hands with incredible bluffs, this whole "Nash equilibrium solution" is nothing more than a conjecture with some symbols thrown in. I will re-iterate, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge when you have imperfect information. If you play "optimally," you will get bluffed out of all your money the moment everyone else at the table figures out what you're doing.
The last time I tried Immich (a year ago or so), my impression was that Immich tries to imitate Google Photos as much as possible. This includes features such as searching by a person or by "cat", which requires some machine learning sophistication, which is done locally (you can also disable these features). This would be my guess, but I'm not entirely sure.
It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works.
What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does: but not for a simple reason like “because we have the police which is meant to give security to people”
A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on.
The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe.
Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
> A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
That's also not necessarily the point I'm making. Suppose you are in a society where a small part of people are bad actors, for whatever reason. They will break and enter, murder, and rape. You want to protect the rest of the society against these bad actors. You can now equip everyone with weapons so they may defend themselves. That also enables the bad actors to use said weapons because we don't know who really know who is a bad actor (at least not the ones that didn't commit any crimes yet). Or you give weapons only to a small part of society, where you enforce strict gun laws.
The alternative is to reduce the number of bad actors and this is, in part, fulfilled by the conditions that you are describing. But how do I reduce the number of state leaders that are willing to shoot each other? I guess it's what you are saying, namely constructive, open, and fair trade. But we're not really making progress in that direction it seems.
> A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does
Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control.
And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed.
In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
Grew up rural Alberta with rifles around the house all the time, in plain view. For shooting game. Not a word was ever uttered about "defending ourselves" with guns... From who?
Hell, we left our door unlocked when we left the house unless it was overnight.
Good grief. Nothing is sadder than people valorizing social/cultural breakdown.
AR-15 is relatively popular for hunting in the US though?
I don't lock my house or my car habitually, never had a problem, never felt the need to keep a weapon either, but I know plenty of people that live in the city that have been robbed or assaulted and do feel the need to carry though. I can't really blame them for not relying on police.
Sportsmen use long guns like 30’6 for big game hunting (elk, deer, antelope) out west. Shots over 100 yards require a large cartridge like that. AR-15 are used in the southern states for wild hogs and varmints, or coyotes. Not exactly trophy hunters. I’m just saying the popularity of the AR-15 is not driven by hunters.
I'm citation heavy, but it's also a fact I wouldn't cite as I think/thought it was fairly common knowledge. Here [1] is some random report on it. There's a huge difference in criminality rates between urban and rural, and this applies to most of everywhere in the world.
As someone with roots in a rural area, there’s a lot of crime in such places that is simply never found out (sparse population == fewer opportunities to be caught), is an “open secret” that never gets resolved, is quietly swept under the rug, etc, sometimes even involving local law enforcement. As a result, there’s plenty in the data worth questioning.
This is definitely true, and that report works to control for it. The reason there's no homicide data listed on that report is because it's based on the National Crime Victimization Survey. It surveys people on their victimization instead of relying on police reports. Police reports would make the differences appear even larger.
Although on this topic I'd also add that urban areas have a similar issue. Criminals know that the overwhelming majority of crime goes unpunished, while people have a reality deluded by shows like CSI. Homicides, for instance, have the highest clearance rate, by far. And it's 47.5%. [1] Vehicular theft has the worst at 6.6%. If you end up with your window busted out and everything that's not strapped down stolen, there's no real point reporting it to the police unless necessary for an insurance claim because you're never getting that stuff back, and the thief is never getting caught.
The stability of society and the law based facilitation of peace are absolutely within the mission of police forces and highly facilitative to the prosperity of a society.
I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
> Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
People who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective.
Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension.
Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery.
You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
reply