Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-source Zig book

zigbook.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#61

Post by gamegoblin »

fuzzy_biscuit wrote: post #38
gamegoblin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pangram.com, the most accurate and lowest false positive AI detector https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals

Why does this feel like an ad? I've seen pangram mentioned a few times now, always with that tagline. It feels like a marketing department skulking around comments.

The other pangram mention elsewhere in this comment section is also me -- I'm totally unaffiliated with them, just a fan of their tool

I specify the accuracy and false positive rate because otherwise skeptics in comment sections might otherwise think it's one of the plethora of other AI detection tools that don't really work

Re: Open-source Zig book

#64

Post by mendelmaleh »

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#65

Post by finder83 »

johnfn wrote: post #48

The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on: > Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. “Not just X - Y” constructions. > By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand…

Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate.

I'm not sure what to make of that either.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#66

Post by Rochus »

maxbond wrote: post #47
Rochus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I understand being okay with a book being generated (some of the text I published in this manual [1] is generated), I can imagine not caring that the author lied about their use of AI, but I really don't understand the suggestion I write a book about a subject I just told you I'm clueless about. I feel like there's some kind of epistemic nihilism here that I can't fathom. Or maybe you meant it as a barb and it's not…

I would rather care whether there is a book at all and whether it is useful.

> I write a book about a subject I just told you I'm clueless about

Use AI. Even if you use AI, it's still a lot of work. Or write a book about why people shouldn't let AI write their books.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#68

Post by gregsadetsky »

mendelmaleh wrote: post #64

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.

There seems to be https://notbyai.fyi/ and https://no-ai-icon.com/ ..!

Re: Open-source Zig book

#69

Post by geysersam »

maxbond wrote: post #30
PaulRobinson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just say that a linguistic style "proves" or even "suggests" AI. Remember, AI is just spitting out things its seen before elsewhere. There's plenty of other texts I've seen with this sort of writing style, written long before AI was around. Can I also ask: so what if it is or it isn't? While AI slop is infuriating, and the bubble hype is maddening, I'm not sure every time somebody sees some content they don…

You can be skeptical of anything but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest that it's generated text. As to why it matters, doesn't it matter when people lie? Aren't you worried about the veracity of the text if it's not only generated but was presented otherwise? That wouldn't erode your trust that the author reviewed the text and corrected any hallucinations ev…

> but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest ai generated text

Why? Didn't people use such constructions frequently before AI? Some authors probably overused them the same frequency AI does.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#70

Post by johnfn »

finder83 wrote: post #65
johnfn wrote: post #48

The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on: > Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. “Not just X - Y” constructions. > By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand…

Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate. I'm not sure what to make of that either.

To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.
Post reply on HN