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

91–100 of 213 posts

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

#91

Post by NetMageSCW »

360MustangScope wrote: post #15
monooso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just writing. I frequently write like that. This insistence that certain stylistics patterns are "tell-tale" signs that an article was written by AI makes no sense, particularly when you consider that whatever stylistic ticks an LLM may possess are a result of it being trained on human writing.

I hate that I can’t write em dashes freely anymore without people accusing the writing of being AI generated. Even though they are perfect for usage in writing down thoughts and notes.

Why do you care what others accuse you of?

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

#92

Post by NetMageSCW »

croemer wrote: post #17
360MustangScope wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that I can’t write em dashes freely anymore without people accusing the writing of being AI generated. Even though they are perfect for usage in writing down thoughts and notes.

I have nothing against em dashes. As long as your writing is human, experienced readers will be able to tell it's human. Only less experienced ones will use all or nothing rules. Em dashes just increase the likelihood that the text was LLM generated. They aren't proof.

Evidently there are no experienced readers who post AI accusations.

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

#93

Post by croemer »

Aurornis wrote: post #70
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.

I disagree. I like to read articles and explore Show HN posts, but in the past 6 months I’ve wasted a lot of time following HN links that looked interesting but turned out to be AI slop. Several Show HN posts lately have taken me to repos that were AI generated plagiarisms of other projects, presented on HN as their own original ideas. Seeing comments warning about the AI content of a link is helpful to let others kn…

> you’re reading an AI expansion of someone’s smaller prompt, which contained the original info you’re interested in

This got me thinking: what if LLMs are used to do the opposite? To condense a long prompt into a short article? That takes more work but might make the outcome more enjoyable as it contains more information.

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

#94

Post by NetMageSCW »

andersonpico wrote: post #85
brookst wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That nuance is lost on the majority of anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable. “An em dash… they’re a witch!”… “it’s not just X, it’s Y… they’re a witch!”

> anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable. that's a strawman alright; all the comments complaining how they can't use their writing style without being ganged up on are positive karma from my angle, so I'm not sure the "positive social reactions" are really aligned with your imagination. Or does it only count when it aligns w…

You have the same problem apparently. You think it’s okay to go witch hunting and accuse people with no real evidence.

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

#95

Post by NetMageSCW »

croemer wrote: post #31
tapoxi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my exact writing style - I'm screwed.

I doubt you write like that. Where can I find your writing other than your comments which IMO don't read like the blog post?

Justify your doubt.

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

#96

Post by NetMageSCW »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #13
gcr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...

Then pangram isn't very good, because that article is full of Claude-isms.

You sound like a flat earther and a moon landing denier combined.

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

#97

Post by NetMageSCW »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #64
embedding-shape wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because that article is full of Claude-isms Not sure how I feel about the whole "LLMs learned from human texts, so now the people who helped write human texts are suddenly accused of plagiarizing LLMs" thing yet, but seems backwards so far and like a low quality criticism.

I'm sure some human writers would write: > The specification forces this question on every path through the IMU mode-switching code. A reviewer examining BADEND would see correct, complete cleanup for every resource BADEND was designed to handle. > The specification approaches from the other direction: starting from LGYRO and asking whether any paths fail to clear it. > *Tests verify the code as written; a behavioura…

Your guess is worth what you paid for it.

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

#98

Post by NetMageSCW »

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, because all of them are now irrational about the possibility of LLM writing something they read.

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

#99

Post by NetMageSCW »

furyofantares wrote: post #89
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.

Stop voting up slop articles and I'll stop commenting on it.

Point to one.

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

#100

Post by NetMageSCW »

mpalmer wrote: post #87
bookofjoe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hemingway's 4 Fast Rules For Effective Writing 1. Use Short Sentences https://www.wordsthatsing.com.au/post/hemingway-rules

I didn't say they're dispositive. I said they're suspicious. Most people don't write effectively.

So LLMs write effectively and when people do you accuse them of using an LLM?
Post reply on HN