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

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81

Post by wk_end »

croemer wrote: post #33
TruffleLabs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just writing; terse maybe and maybe not grammatically correct, but people write like that.

It's not just terseness, it's the rhythm and "it's not x, it's y". In fact, the latter is the opposite of terseness. LLMs love to tell you what things are not way more than people do. See https://www.blakestockton.com/dont-write-like-ai-1-101-negat... (The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me)

> (The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me)

But an LLM wouldn't write "It's not just X, it's the Y and Z". No disrespect to your writing intended, but adding that extra clause adds just the slightest bit of natural slack to the flow of the sentence, whereas everything LLMs generate comes out like marketing copy that's trying to be as punchy and cloying as possible at all times.

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

#82

Post by bakugo »

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…

The site guidelines were written pre-AI and stop making sense when you add AI-generated content into the equation.

Consider that by submitting AI generated content for humans to read, the statement you're making is "I did not consider this worth my time to write, but I believe it's worth your time to read, because your time is worth less than mine". It's an inherently arrogant and unbalanced exchange.

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

#83

Post by chrisjj »

caminante wrote: post #71
Qwuke wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not even clear if AI was used to find the bug It's not even clear you read the article

Even worse, the other child comments are speculating (and didn't RTFA either) when the answer is clear in the article. > We found this defect by distilling a behavioural specification of the IMU subsystem using Allium, an AI-native behavioural specification language.

> distilling

A.k.a. as fabricating. No wonder they chose to use "AI".

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

#84

Post by chrisjj »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #40
josephg wrote: post #2

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

Not to single out your comment, but it feels like it's gotten to the point where HN could use a rule against complaining about AI generated content. It seems like almost every discussion has at least someone complaining about "AI slop" in either the original post or the comments.

You're suggesting this is the complainant's fault?

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

#85

Post by andersonpico »

brookst wrote: post #60
croemer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against em dashes. As long as your writing is human, experienced readers will be able to tell it's human. Only less experienced ones will use all or nothing rules. Em dashes just increase the likelihood that the text was LLM generated. They aren't proof.

That nuance is lost on the majority of anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable. “An em dash… they’re a witch!”… “it’s not just X, it’s Y… they’re a witch!”

> anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable.

that's a strawman alright; all the comments complaining how they can't use their writing style without being ganged up on are positive karma from my angle, so I'm not sure the "positive social reactions" are really aligned with your imagination. Or does it only count when it aligns with your persecution complex?

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

#86

Post by ezfe »

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.

And flagging is appropriate when you think content is not authentic

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

#87

Post by mpalmer »

bookofjoe wrote: post #69
mpalmer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen way, way worse. Either someone LLM-polished something they already wrote, or they did their own manual editing pass. The short sentence construction is the most suspicious, but I actually don't see anything glaring. It normally jumps out and hits me in the face.

>Hemingway's 4 Fast Rules For Effective Writing 1. Use Short Sentences https://www.wordsthatsing.com.au/post/hemingway-rules

I didn't say they're dispositive. I said they're suspicious. Most people don't write effectively.

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

#89

Post by furyofantares »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #40
josephg wrote: post #2

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

Not to single out your comment, but it feels like it's gotten to the point where HN could use a rule against complaining about AI generated content. It seems like almost every discussion has at least someone complaining about "AI slop" in either the original post or the comments.

Stop voting up slop articles and I'll stop commenting on it.

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

#90

Post by NetMageSCW »

croemer wrote: post #16
monooso wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

Those aren’t good examples - that’s just LLMs living for free in your head.
Post reply on HN