[dead]
When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
21–30 of 70 posts
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#22[dead]
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#23I don’t understand why people are saying this article was AI generated. Do you think the author told chatgpt “Write me an article (with diagrams) about a Ruby hash race condition” and pasted that to their blog?
Parts of it being generated by Claude or ChatGPT (which they very clearly were) does not necessarily mean that the whole article was fabricated.
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#24LLM slop. Why do people (presumably) take the time to debug something like this, do tests and go to great lengths, but are too lazy to do a little manual writeup? Maybe the hour saved makes up for being associated with publishing AI slop under your own name? Like there is no way the author would have written a text that reads more convoluted than what we have here.
Sorry, why is this LLM slop? I only got about halfway through because I don’t care about this enough to finish the read, but I don’t see the “obvious LLM” signal you do.
Parts of it were 100% LLM written. Like it or not, people can recognize LLM-generated text pretty easily, and if they see it they are going to make the assumption that the rest of the article is slop too.
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clearest in the conclusion.
I still don’t see it. I feel like the “this is AI” crowd is getting ridiculous. Too perfect? Clearly AI. Too sloppy? That’s clearly AI too. Rarely is there anything concrete that the person claiming AI can point to. It’s just “I can tell”. Same confident assurance that all the teachers trusting “AI detectors” have.
I came to this thread hoping to read an interesting discussion of a topic I don’t understand well; instead it’s this
I have opened a wager r.e. detecting LLM/AI use in blogs: https://dkdc.dev/posts/llm-ai-blog-challenge/
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, why is this LLM slop? I only got about halfway through because I don’t care about this enough to finish the read, but I don’t see the “obvious LLM” signal you do.
Parts of it were 100% LLM written. Like it or not, people can recognize LLM-generated text pretty easily, and if they see it they are going to make the assumption that the rest of the article is slop too.
And yet you don’t call out any parts that are 100% AI and how you recognize them as such.
I’m not saying there’s no AI here. I am asking for some evidence to back up the claim though.
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don’t see it. I feel like the “this is AI” crowd is getting ridiculous. Too perfect? Clearly AI. Too sloppy? That’s clearly AI too. Rarely is there anything concrete that the person claiming AI can point to. It’s just “I can tell”. Same confident assurance that all the teachers trusting “AI detectors” have.
I came to this thread hoping to read an interesting discussion of a topic I don’t understand well; instead it’s this I have opened a wager r.e. detecting LLM/AI use in blogs: https://dkdc.dev/posts/llm-ai-blog-challenge/
I feel like it’s on every other article now. The “this is ai” comments detract way more from the conversation than whatever supposed ai content is actually in the article.
These ai hunters are like the transvestigators who are certain they can always tell who’s trans.
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#28LLM slop. Why do people (presumably) take the time to debug something like this, do tests and go to great lengths, but are too lazy to do a little manual writeup? Maybe the hour saved makes up for being associated with publishing AI slop under your own name? Like there is no way the author would have written a text that reads more convoluted than what we have here.
For example beigg non native english speaker:)
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don’t see it. I feel like the “this is AI” crowd is getting ridiculous. Too perfect? Clearly AI. Too sloppy? That’s clearly AI too. Rarely is there anything concrete that the person claiming AI can point to. It’s just “I can tell”. Same confident assurance that all the teachers trusting “AI detectors” have.
I came to this thread hoping to read an interesting discussion of a topic I don’t understand well; instead it’s this I have opened a wager r.e. detecting LLM/AI use in blogs: https://dkdc.dev/posts/llm-ai-blog-challenge/
I don't have a million dollars but I'll take you up on it for like a grand. I'm serious, email me.
Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came to this thread hoping to read an interesting discussion of a topic I don’t understand well; instead it’s this I have opened a wager r.e. detecting LLM/AI use in blogs: https://dkdc.dev/posts/llm-ai-blog-challenge/
I don't have a million dollars but I'll take you up on it for like a grand. I'm serious, email me.
the problem is it’s a lot of work (not actually worth it for me for a thousand dollars) — but you cannot win
just one scenario, I write 100 rather short, very similar blog posts. run 50 through Claude Code with instructions “copy this file”. have fun distinguishing! of course that’s an extreme way to go about it, but I could use the AI more and end up at the same result trivially