4 ms·

I waited half a day to post this, I think we aren't supposed to question if articles are LLM written - but this one really triggered my LLM-radar, while also be

I waited half a day to post this, I think we aren't supposed to question if articles are LLM written - but this one really triggered my LLM-radar, while also being very well received. I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ayuhito 1y ago
> I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.) Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays? I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.
- furyofantares 1y ago
  > Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays? No, typically when I ask questions it's optional. > I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards. That is why I waited half a day, and until after there were lots of comments praising the article. Still, I'm sorry if it put a damper on it for you. Also the whole reason I asked about the source is because I think the article has a lot of merit and so I am curious if it's because the author put a lot of work in (LLM-assisted or not.) Usually when I get that feeling it's followed by a realization I'm wasting my time on something the author didn't even read closely. But I didn't get that this time, and I'd love more examples of LLMs being used (with effort, presumably) to produce something the author could take pride in.
  - furyofantares 1y ago
    > But I didn't get that this time, Actually, I take it back. I did think I was wasting my time when I noticed it was written by an LLM. But then I came back to HN an saw only praise and decided to wait a bit to see if people kept finding it useful before commenting. I was somewhat excited by the prospect of this article being useful, but I've started to come around to my initial impression after another day. I don't really trust it.
darccio 1y ago
The structure reads as LLM written. I don't mind this unless the content is utterly wrong. I was actually learning about cache-friendly data structures and I'm really interested in that cache-friendly Robin Hood hashing but now I worry it's a hallucination.
- tapirl 1y ago
  None of the tricks in this article get verified. Almost all of them are false.
  - tapirl 1y ago
    sorry, the False Sharing tick works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547441
tapirl 1y ago
None of the tricks in this article get verified. It is totally solemn drivel. Interesting and surprisingly, there are numerous praising comments here.
- furyofantares 1y ago
  FWIW, which may be not much - I had codex cli try to verify the results. On my M2 Macbook Air only the first example (False Sharing) did anything - a 23x speedup compared to the article's 6x speedup. All the others didn't produce any speedup at all. Of course I didn't verify the results I got either - I'm not about to spend hours trying to figure out if this is just slop. But I think it is.
  - tapirl 1y ago
    Could you share the benchmark source code of the first example?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - furyofantares 1y ago
      Here's the one that showed a lot more speedup than the article: https://pastebin.com/v9tczpus https://pastebin.com/v9tczpus Looks like the LLM invented somewhat different test for it than the article had. I tried again and have this with the same data structure as in the article: https://pastebin.com/SDdcchZG https://pastebin.com/SDdcchZG That gave similar results to the article. All the other tests still give little-to-no speedup on my machine.
      - tapirl 1y ago
        Many thanks for providing the source. It also works on my machine. TIL.
        furyofantares 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ayuhito 1y ago

> I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.) Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays? I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.

furyofantares 1y ago
> Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays? No, typically when I ask questions it's optional. > I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards. That is why I waited half a day, and until after there were lots of comments praising the article. Still, I'm sorry if it put a damper on it for you. Also the whole reason I asked about the source is because I think the article has a lot of merit and so I am curious if it's because the author put a lot of work in (LLM-assisted or not.) Usually when I get that feeling it's followed by a realization I'm wasting my time on something the author didn't even read closely. But I didn't get that this time, and I'd love more examples of LLMs being used (with effort, presumably) to produce something the author could take pride in.
- furyofantares 1y ago
  > But I didn't get that this time, Actually, I take it back. I did think I was wasting my time when I noticed it was written by an LLM. But then I came back to HN an saw only praise and decided to wait a bit to see if people kept finding it useful before commenting. I was somewhat excited by the prospect of this article being useful, but I've started to come around to my initial impression after another day. I don't really trust it.

darccio 1y ago

The structure reads as LLM written. I don't mind this unless the content is utterly wrong. I was actually learning about cache-friendly data structures and I'm really interested in that cache-friendly Robin Hood hashing but now I worry it's a hallucination.

tapirl 1y ago
None of the tricks in this article get verified. Almost all of them are false.
- tapirl 1y ago
  sorry, the False Sharing tick works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547441

tapirl 1y ago

None of the tricks in this article get verified. It is totally solemn drivel. Interesting and surprisingly, there are numerous praising comments here.

furyofantares 1y ago
FWIW, which may be not much - I had codex cli try to verify the results. On my M2 Macbook Air only the first example (False Sharing) did anything - a 23x speedup compared to the article's 6x speedup. All the others didn't produce any speedup at all. Of course I didn't verify the results I got either - I'm not about to spend hours trying to figure out if this is just slop. But I think it is.
- tapirl 1y ago
  Could you share the benchmark source code of the first example?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - furyofantares 1y ago
    Here's the one that showed a lot more speedup than the article: https://pastebin.com/v9tczpus https://pastebin.com/v9tczpus Looks like the LLM invented somewhat different test for it than the article had. I tried again and have this with the same data structure as in the article: https://pastebin.com/SDdcchZG https://pastebin.com/SDdcchZG That gave similar results to the article. All the other tests still give little-to-no speedup on my machine.
    - tapirl 1y ago
      Many thanks for providing the source. It also works on my machine. TIL.
      - furyofantares 1y ago