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

Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

localai.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#11

Post by wannabe44 »

nnevatie wrote: post #9
altmanaltman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through the post because of your comment but it really doesn't look like AI slop. Can you please share why you feel like its slop and not written by a human? I can also say "should have started writing your own comments" to you and its unfalsifiable. Blanket accusations with no proof is not a good move really.

The post is full of signs. Here's only a couple of examples: > The method, the measurements, and what it costs us. > That is the general shape of these wins. > Parity is the gate, speed is the follow-up I could go on and on, but you probably get the point. If you don't find anything funny with the above, you might have not been enough-exposed to slop.

It's always hyping up something and throwing punch lines in every sentence. Normies love this shit.

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#12

Post by lelanthran »

stephbook wrote: post #3

Should have started with writing your own blog posts.

> Should have started with writing your own blog posts.

While the page looks vibe-coded[1], the content itself does not have any AI tells. What are the tells you are seeing?

[1] Too many sites I find on HN frontpage these days slow my PC to a crawl. I assume they are all using the same autogenerated HTML, Javascrip and CSS to make animated backgrounds :-( On this specific site scrolling is laggy.

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#13

Post by nnevatie »

wannabe44 wrote: post #11
nnevatie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post is full of signs. Here's only a couple of examples: > The method, the measurements, and what it costs us. > That is the general shape of these wins. > Parity is the gate, speed is the follow-up I could go on and on, but you probably get the point. If you don't find anything funny with the above, you might have not been enough-exposed to slop.

It's always hyping up something and throwing punch lines in every sentence. Normies love this shit.

Yes, it’s basically business-as-usual but on speed.

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#14

Post by wonnage »

lelanthran wrote: post #12
stephbook wrote: post #3

Should have started with writing your own blog posts.

> Should have started with writing your own blog posts. While the page looks vibe-coded[1], the content itself does not have any AI tells. What are the tells you are seeing? [1] Too many sites I find on HN frontpage these days slow my PC to a crawl. I assume they are all using the same autogenerated HTML, Javascrip and CSS to make animated backgrounds :-( On this specific site scrolling is laggy.

[flagged]

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#17

Post by altmanaltman »

nnevatie wrote: post #9
altmanaltman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through the post because of your comment but it really doesn't look like AI slop. Can you please share why you feel like its slop and not written by a human? I can also say "should have started writing your own comments" to you and its unfalsifiable. Blanket accusations with no proof is not a good move really.

The post is full of signs. Here's only a couple of examples: > The method, the measurements, and what it costs us. > That is the general shape of these wins. > Parity is the gate, speed is the follow-up I could go on and on, but you probably get the point. If you don't find anything funny with the above, you might have not been enough-exposed to slop.

What do you mean you could go on and on? Why do you think those sentences are AI written.

And okay, your second argument is that I just don't know slop because I am not exposed to it? But you don't know anything about me or what I am exposed.

You're just making random claims and stating they are correct without any evidence or arguments.

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#18

Post by polotics »

nnevatie wrote: post #4
stephbook wrote: post #3

Should have started with writing your own blog posts.

Came here to say the same. Really tiring to read these slop-infested posts, where everything has the “right shape”.

The thing is... although the writing is unmistakably full of LLMisms, I can't fault the `author` for having produced a slop readme. The content earns its keep, it only grates because of the robotic personality. We need another word than "slop" for this.

"blland", "llame",... ?

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#19

Post by rcarmo »

altmanaltman wrote: post #17
nnevatie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post is full of signs. Here's only a couple of examples: > The method, the measurements, and what it costs us. > That is the general shape of these wins. > Parity is the gate, speed is the follow-up I could go on and on, but you probably get the point. If you don't find anything funny with the above, you might have not been enough-exposed to slop.

What do you mean you could go on and on? Why do you think those sentences are AI written. And okay, your second argument is that I just don't know slop because I am not exposed to it? But you don't know anything about me or what I am exposed. You're just making random claims and stating they are correct without any evidence or arguments.

They follow the tropes I get when I ask AI to do docs or summaries. Very Opus style, this one.

Re: Why we write our own C and C++ inference engines

#20

Post by interpol_p »

lelanthran wrote: post #12
stephbook wrote: post #3

Should have started with writing your own blog posts.

> Should have started with writing your own blog posts. While the page looks vibe-coded[1], the content itself does not have any AI tells. What are the tells you are seeing? [1] Too many sites I find on HN frontpage these days slow my PC to a crawl. I assume they are all using the same autogenerated HTML, Javascrip and CSS to make animated backgrounds :-( On this specific site scrolling is laggy.

I stopped reading almost immediately. The stylistic choices in the writing just felt like LLM to me. Examples:

"depth estimation that beats PyTorch on CPU in half the memory" — "…beats X in Y…"

"Most LocalAI backends wrap somebody else’s engine, and that is the right default." — "…and that is the right"

"MLX and the rest are maintained by people who are better at those models than we are" — "better at those models than we are" — it's this thing that LLMs do where they are kind of weirdly confident but overly deferential

"This post is about what those ports buy" — "…buy" used in this context

"Same model, 1.31x the speed" — "Same X, something Y" — it's this overconfident yet deferential writing style

The further I read, the more tells there are. I find it incredibly tiring to read LLM generated prose and I'm not sure why. Is it because I'm aware it's not human written and have an unconscious bias? Or is it because the style is just full-on, "Not X but Y. Those performance gains are bought, not earned. This stops, that starts. Read on, or don't, that's the follow-up"

Post reply on HN