91–100 of 426 posts
> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.
https://cadence.moe/blog/2024-10-05-created-by-a-human-badge...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some examples where the text reeks of AI?
Literally the heading as soon as you click the submitted link > Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. The "it's not X, it's Y" phrasing screams LLM these days
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest ai generated text Why? Didn't people use such constructions frequently before AI? Some authors probably overused them the same frequency AI does.
I don't think there was very much abuse of "not just A, but B" before ChatGPT. I think that's more of a product of RLHF than the initial training. Very few people wrote with the incredibly overwrought and flowery style of AI, and the English speaking Internet where most of the (English language) training data was sourced from is largely casual, everyday language. I imagine other language communities on the Internet a…
The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on: > Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software. “Not just X - Y” constructions. > By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand…
Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong. You can't tell something is AI generated only because it uses "not just X - Y" constructions. I mean, the reason AI text often uses it is because it's common in the training material. So of course you're going to see it everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can the author... Convince me otherwise? Not disagreeing with you, but out of interest, how could you be convinced otherwise?
I'm not sure, but I try my best to assume good faith / be optimistic. This one hit a sore spot b/c many people are putting time and effort into writing things themselves and to claim "no ai use" if it is untrue is not fair. If the author had a good explanation... Idk not a native English writer and used an LLM to translate and that included the "no LLMs used" call-out and that was translated improperly etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there was very much abuse of "not just A, but B" before ChatGPT. I think that's more of a product of RLHF than the initial training. Very few people wrote with the incredibly overwrought and flowery style of AI, and the English speaking Internet where most of the (English language) training data was sourced from is largely casual, everyday language. I imagine other language communities on the Internet a…
It's been alleged that a major source of training data for many LLMs was libgen and SciHub - hardly casual.
So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…
IMO HN should add a guideline about not insinuating things were written by AI. It degrades the quality of the site similarly to many of the existing rules. Arguably it would be covered by some of the existing rules, but it's become such a common occurrence that it may need singling out.
One thing I've learned is that comment sections are a vital defense on AI content spreading, because while you might fool some people, it's hard to fool all the people. There have been times I've been fooled by AI only to see in the comments the consensus that it is AI. So now it's my standard practice to check comments to see what others are saying.
If mods put a rule into place that muzzles this community when it comes to alerting others a fraud is being affected, that just makes this place a target for AI scams.
I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all.
Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)