11–20 of 34 posts
Original paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17033
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812695
Breaking the sorting barrier for directed single-source shortest paths - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44812695 - Aug 2025 (51 comments)
The linked medium post is clearly written by an AI but I think it does a decent job at summarising the results. Glancing through the paper on ArXiv, it feels like they've cleverly combined speed-up techniques from variations of Dijkstra invented over the years. The Thresh X2 [0] algorithm - for example - does away with the priority queue that is the bottleneck in Dijkstra. Instead, it iteratively runs a "label-correc…
The linked medium post is clearly written by an AI but I think it does a decent job at summarising the results. Glancing through the paper on ArXiv, it feels like they've cleverly combined speed-up techniques from variations of Dijkstra invented over the years. The Thresh X2 [0] algorithm - for example - does away with the priority queue that is the bottleneck in Dijkstra. Instead, it iteratively runs a "label-correc…
Why don't you focus on the actual content instead of attacking its authorship? Your comment is clearly written by an AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you focus on the actual content instead of attacking its authorship? Your comment is clearly written by an AI.
I did say it provides a decent summary. I write my own posts except where I explicitly copypaste a response from an LLM. In fact I just asked Claude Code and ChatGPT about the Thresh X2 algorithm and they couldn't even descibe it to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did say it provides a decent summary. I write my own posts except where I explicitly copypaste a response from an LLM. In fact I just asked Claude Code and ChatGPT about the Thresh X2 algorithm and they couldn't even descibe it to me.
There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did say it provides a decent summary. I write my own posts except where I explicitly copypaste a response from an LLM. In fact I just asked Claude Code and ChatGPT about the Thresh X2 algorithm and they couldn't even descibe it to me.
There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
Identifying AI is useful to others. Especially in academic topics (where it is less reliable) or where text lacks a disclaimer. I do so without meaning to criticise AI itself. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
Personally, I think you need to chill. He wasn’t “attacking” it, he was just commenting and includes his interpretation about it being from AI. Why don’t YOU just focus on the primary point of his comments instead of latching onto the AI part—or is it okay when you do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identifying AI is useful to others. Especially in academic topics (where it is less reliable) or where text lacks a disclaimer. I do so without meaning to criticise AI itself. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
I have seen lots of biased hateful users such as yourself that falsely attempt to discredit valid posts by claiming they're written by AI. It's extremely dumb and evil, is not backed any evidence, and is irrelevant to the post. Even if the post to actually be written by AI, that is no reason to use that assertion to try to discredit it. It ruins an otherwise excellent comment.
I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction:
https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-bro...
and:
https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-...
They seem to have a process for grabbing a research paper, getting an LLM to summarise it, adding AI-generated images and pseudo code, and publishing it. There are lots of parallels in describing fundamental breakthroughs overturning decades of conventional wisdom. And it has the same clipped bullet lists with sound bite phrases, and slideshow style headings. It's extremely reminiscent of what happens when I ask Claude to give me a summary of something.
As a general note, I do think it best to take any article written by AI with a pinch of salt. Much like you should closely review any code they write. It's not at the level of a human expert, but it's trained to convince you that it is one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen lots of biased hateful users such as yourself that falsely attempt to discredit valid posts by claiming they're written by AI. It's extremely dumb and evil, is not backed any evidence, and is irrelevant to the post. Even if the post to actually be written by AI, that is no reason to use that assertion to try to discredit it. It ruins an otherwise excellent comment.
Why "evil"? I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-bro... and: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-... They seem to have a process for grabbi…
It should make no difference it's written by AI or not. One should evaluate and criticize content without regard to who or what has written it. Conversely, just because a human writes something should not and does not make it superior.
People like you shamelessly attempt to suppress a broad spectrum of writing whenever they find something to disagree with, by blaming it on AI. That's what's evil about it.