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

121–130 of 213 posts

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

#121

Post by rudhdb773b »

chrisjj wrote: post #84
rudhdb773b wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. These HN guidlines already basically cover it:

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

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

#123

Post by esafak »

An application of their specification language, https://juxt.github.io/allium/

It seems the difference between this and conventional specification languages is that Allium's specs are in natural language, and enforcement is by LLM. This places it in a middle ground between unstructured plan files, and formal specification languages. I can see this as a low friction way to improve code quality.

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

#124

Post by chrisjj »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #121
chrisjj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. These HN guidlines already basically cover it: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

> Yes. These HN guidlines already basically cover it:

>> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

>> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

They don't. people. tangential.

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

#125

Post by Quinner »

wat10000 wrote: post #114
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting from the first test pilots, a lot of people died for us to get to the point to launch that flight. So while no one died on the flight, lots of people died just getting us there. If I recall, in The Right Stuff, it's mentioned that those early test pilots had something like a 25% mortality rate.

The early jet age was pretty nuts. Check the Wikipedia page for a random fighter from the era and you'll see figures like, 1,300 built, 50 lost in combat, 1,100 lost in accidents. And that's operational aircraft. Test pilots were in even more danger.

Some were pretty bad, but none were nearly that bad. The B-58 Hustler lost 22% of its airframes, the F7U Cutlass 25%, the F-104 Starfighter in German service lost 33%. And those were outliers.

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

#126

Post by chrisjj »

perching_aix wrote: post #80
chrisjj wrote: post #65

> The specs were derived from the code itself Oh dear. I strongly suggest this author look specification up in a dictionary.

It's (what they're describing is) just reverse engineering. That's what reverse engineering is.

Fortunately reverse engineering too is in the dictionary - to help anyone mistaking it for spec generation.

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

#127

Post by nativeit »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #58

For anyone who liked this, I highly suggest you take a look at the CuriousMarc youtube channel, where he chronicles lots of efforts to preserve and understand several parts of the Apollo AGC, with a team of really technically competent and passionate collaborators. One of the more interesting things they have been working on, is a potential re-interpretation of the infamous 1202 alarm. It is, as of current writing, p…

Related topic on CuriousMarc and co.’s AGC restoration: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47641528

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

#129

Post by jmalicki »

croemer wrote: post #20
gcr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: “I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me” by Marcus Olang', https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li... For what it’s worth, Pangram reports that Marcus’ article is 100% LLM-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/640288b9-e16b-4f76-a730-8000...

In theory, wouldn't be too hard be to settle the question if whether he used ChatGPT to write it: get Olang to write a few paragraphs by hand, then have people judge (blindly) if it's the same style as the article. Which one sounds more like ChatGPT.

When people judge blindly, the are more likely to think the human is the AI and the AI is the human.

73% judged GPT 4.5 (edit: had incorrectly said 4o before)to be the human.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

Not only are people bad at judging this, but are directionally wrong.

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

#130

Post by fragmede »

bbstats wrote: post #105
ChrisRR wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not setting off any LLM alarm bells to me. It just reads like any other scientific article, which is very often soulless

the subheadings are extremely AI IMHO

Isn't that just a normal way to organize a large document?
Post reply on HN