Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
You have no evidence that it was.
We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
21–30 of 213 posts
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...
Then pangram isn't very good, because that article is full of Claude-isms.
It has Claude-isms, but it doesn't feel very Claude-written to me, at least not entirely.
What's making it even more difficult to tell now is people who use AI a lot seem to be actively picking up some of its vocab and writing style quirks.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#23Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
This is the top reply on a substantial percentage of HN posts now and we should discourage it.
It is:
- sneering
- a shallow dismissal (please address the content)
- curmudgeonly
- a tangential annoyance
All things explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. [1]
Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. We don't need the same comment on every single article.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#24Has someone verified this was an actual bug?
One of AI’s strengths is definitely exploration, f.e. in finding bugs, but it still has a high false positive rate. Depending on context that matters or it wont.
Also one has to be aware that there are a lot of bugs that AI won’t find but humans would
I don’t have the expertise to verify this bug actually happened, but I’m curious.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any specific sections that stick out? Juxt in the past had really great articles, even before LLMs, and know for a fact they don't lack the expertise or knowledge to write for themselves if they wanted and while I haven't completely read this article yet, I'd surprise me if they just let LLMs write articles for them today.
Here's one tell-tale of many: "No alarm, no program light." Another one: "Two instructions are missing: [...] Four bytes." One more: "The defensive coding hid the problem, but it didn’t eliminate it."
This is my exact writing style - I'm screwed.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#26Someone please amend the title and add "using claude code" because that's customary nowadays.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just writing. I frequently write like that. This insistence that certain stylistics patterns are "tell-tale" signs that an article was written by AI makes no sense, particularly when you consider that whatever stylistic ticks an LLM may possess are a result of it being trained on human writing.
These are just some of the good examples I found. My hunch that this is substantially LLM-generated is based on more than that. In my head it's like a Bayesian classifier, you look at all the sentences and judge whether each is more or less likely to be LLM vs human generated. Then you add prior information like that the author did the research using Claude - which increases the likelihood that they also use Claude f…
Here's an alternative way of thinking about this...
Someone probably expended a lot of time and effort planning, thinking about, and writing an interesting article, and then you stroll by and casually accuse them of being a bone idle cheat, with no supporting evidence other than your "sensitive detector" and a bunch of hand-wavy nonsense that adds up to naught.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#28Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
"Written by an LLM" based on what data or symptom?
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#29Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
This is the top reply on a substantial percentage of HN posts now and we should discourage it. It is: - sneering - a shallow dismissal (please address the content) - curmudgeonly - a tangential annoyance All things explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. [1] Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. We don't need the same comment on every single article. [1] - https://news…
No idea why you're being downvoted. I've done my bit to redress the balance, I hope others do the same.
Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any specific sections that stick out? Juxt in the past had really great articles, even before LLMs, and know for a fact they don't lack the expertise or knowledge to write for themselves if they wanted and while I haven't completely read this article yet, I'd surprise me if they just let LLMs write articles for them today.
Here's one tell-tale of many: "No alarm, no program light." Another one: "Two instructions are missing: [...] Four bytes." One more: "The defensive coding hid the problem, but it didn’t eliminate it."
This is just writing; terse maybe and maybe not grammatically correct, but people write like that.