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

When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

mensfeld.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#31

Post by _dain_ »

dkdcio wrote: post #30
_dain_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is so childish and pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#32

Post by internetter »

dkdcio wrote: post #25
dpark wrote: post #14

Earlier 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 will make a bet for $1,000,000!

> I won't actually make this bet!

> But if I did make this bet, I would win!

???

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#33

Post by dkdcio »

_dain_ wrote: post #31
dkdcio wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is so childish and pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

why? LLM/AI use doesn’t denote anything about style or quality of a blog, that’s the point — and why this type of commentary all of HackerNews and elsewhere is so annoying.

obviously if a million dollars are on the line I’m going to do what I can to win. I’m just pointing out how that can be taken to the extreme, but again I can use the tools more in the spirit of the challenge and (very easily) end up with the same results

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#34

Post by Animats »

So they turned on GC after every allocate ("GC stress"), and

"With GC.stress = true, the GC runs after every possible allocation. That causes immediate segfaults because objects get freed before Ruby can even allocate new objects in their memory slots."

That would seem to indicate a situation so broken that you can't expect anything to work reliably. The wrong-value situation would seem to be a subset of a bigger problem. It's like finding C code that depends on use-after-free working and which fails when you turn on buffer scrubbing at free.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#35

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #34

So they turned on GC after every allocate ("GC stress"), and "With GC.stress = true, the GC runs after every possible allocation. That causes immediate segfaults because objects get freed before Ruby can even allocate new objects in their memory slots." That would seem to indicate a situation so broken that you can't expect anything to work reliably. The wrong-value situation would seem to be a subset of a bigger pro…

[deleted]

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#36

Post by PKop »

fn-mote wrote: post #16
fleshmonad wrote: post #5

LLM 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.

> Why do people […] take the time to debug […] but are too lazy to do a little manual writeup[?] They like to code. They don’t like to write. I’m not excusing it, but after you asked the question the conclusion seems logical.

> They like to code. They don’t like to write.

People like reading LLM slop less than either of those. So it should become a common understanding not to waste your (or our) time to "write" this. It's frustrating to give it a chance then get rug-pulled with nonsense and there's really no reason to excuse it.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#37

Post by PKop »

dpark wrote: post #14
scmccarthy wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

That's your issue not ours. It's obvious; if you don't have a problem with it, enjoy reading slop; many people can't stand it and we don't have to apologize for recognizing or not liking it.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#38

Post by PKop »

dpark wrote: post #27
dkdcio wrote: post #25

Earlier 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 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.

No. These articles are annoying to read, the same dumb patterns and structures over and over again in every one. It's a waste of time; the content gives off a generic tone and it's not interesting.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#39

Post by Panzer04 »

dkdcio wrote: post #33
_dain_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so childish and pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

why? LLM/AI use doesn’t denote anything about style or quality of a blog, that’s the point — and why this type of commentary all of HackerNews and elsewhere is so annoying. obviously if a million dollars are on the line I’m going to do what I can to win. I’m just pointing out how that can be taken to the extreme, but again I can use the tools more in the spirit of the challenge and (very easily) end up with the same…

People object to using AI to write their articles (poorly). Your answer to them saying it's obvious when it's AI written is to.. write it yourself, then pretend copy-pasting that article via an AI counts as AI-written?

That's a laughable response.

Re: When your hash becomes a string: Hunting Ruby's million-to-one memory bug

#40

Post by dkdcio »

Panzer04 wrote: post #39
dkdcio wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? LLM/AI use doesn’t denote anything about style or quality of a blog, that’s the point — and why this type of commentary all of HackerNews and elsewhere is so annoying. obviously if a million dollars are on the line I’m going to do what I can to win. I’m just pointing out how that can be taken to the extreme, but again I can use the tools more in the spirit of the challenge and (very easily) end up with the same…

People object to using AI to write their articles (poorly). Your answer to them saying it's obvious when it's AI written is to.. write it yourself, then pretend copy-pasting that article via an AI counts as AI-written? That's a laughable response.

my point is using AI is distinct from from the quality of blog posts. these frequent baseless, distracting claims of AI use are silly

this wager is a thought exercise to demonstrate that. want to wager $1,000,000 or think you’ll lose? if you’ll lose, why is it ok to go around writing “YoU uSeD aI” instead of actually assessing the quality of a post?

Post reply on HN