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

We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

juxt.pro

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 213 posts

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#41

Post by croemer »

gcr wrote: post #10
josephg wrote: post #2

Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.

For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...

Pangram doesn't reliably detect individual LLM-generated phrases or paragraphs among human written text.

It seems to look at sections of ~300 words. And for one section at least it has low confidence.

I tested it by getting ChatGPT to add a paragraph to one of my sister comments. Result is "100% human" when in fact it's only 75% human.

Pangram test result: https://www.pangram.com/history/1ee3ce96-6ae5-4de7-9d91-5846...

ChatGPT session where it added a paragraph that Pangram misses: https://chatgpt.com/share/69d4faff-1e18-8329-84fa-6c86fc8258...

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#43

Post by NiloCK »

masklinn wrote: post #37
NiloCK wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. You can’t downvote submissions. That’s literally not a feature of the site. You can only flag submissions, if you have more that 31 karma.

Twelve year old account and who knows how much lurking before that and I've never noticed this. Good lord.

Optimistically, I guess I can call myself some sort of live-and-let-live person.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#44

Post by timdiggerm »

gcr wrote: post #10
josephg wrote: post #2

Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.

For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...

So you're saying Pangram isn't worth much?

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#45

Post by snapcaster »

embedding-shape wrote: post #35
xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then pangram isn't very good, because that article is full of Claude-isms.

> because that article is full of Claude-isms Not sure how I feel about the whole "LLMs learned from human texts, so now the people who helped write human texts are suddenly accused of plagiarizing LLMs" thing yet, but seems backwards so far and like a low quality criticism.

Real talk. You're not just making a good point -- you're questioning the dominant paradigm

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#46

Post by timdiggerm »

NiloCK wrote: post #23
josephg wrote: post #2

Super 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…

It's not a shallow dismissal; it's a dismissal for good reason. It's tangential to the topic, but not to HN overall. It's only curmudgeonly if you assume AI-written posts are the inevitable and good future (aka begging the question). I really don't know how it's "sneering", so I won't address that.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#47

Post by gcr »

croemer wrote: post #41
gcr wrote: post #10

Earlier 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...

Pangram doesn't reliably detect individual LLM-generated phrases or paragraphs among human written text. It seems to look at sections of ~300 words. And for one section at least it has low confidence. I tested it by getting ChatGPT to add a paragraph to one of my sister comments. Result is "100% human" when in fact it's only 75% human. Pangram test result: https://www.pangram.com/history/1ee3ce96-6ae5-4de7-9d91-5846.…

This is useful, thanks! TIL

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#48

Post by jnwatson »

snapcaster wrote: post #45
embedding-shape wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because that article is full of Claude-isms Not sure how I feel about the whole "LLMs learned from human texts, so now the people who helped write human texts are suddenly accused of plagiarizing LLMs" thing yet, but seems backwards so far and like a low quality criticism.

Real talk. You're not just making a good point -- you're questioning the dominant paradigm

Horrible

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#49

Post by breakingcups »

dotancohen wrote: post #32
yodon wrote: post #18

This is so insightfully and powerfully written I had literal chills running down my spine by the end. What a horrible world we live in where the author of great writing like this has to sit and be accused of "being AI slop" simply because they use grammar and rhetoric well.

I was completely riveted the whole read. The description of Collins' dilemma is the first time I've seen an actual real world scenario described that might cause him to return to Earth alone. If an LLM wrote that, then I no longer oppose LLM art.

I thought that was the least likeable part of the article. They speculated wildly, somehow making the leap that a trained astronaut would not resort to a computer reset if the problems persisted to weave the narrative that this bug was super-duper-serious indeed. They didn't need that and it weakened the presentation.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#50

Post by kenjackson »

monooso wrote: post #27
croemer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree with the sentiment, using AI to write the final draft of the article isn’t cheating. People may not like it, but it’s more a stylistic preference.
Post reply on HN