6 ms·

Why do you think that?

by paulddraper 11mo ago

deadbabe 11mo ago
lists, em dashes, headings and typical length of LLM response.
- tptacek 11mo ago
  You think an AI wrote "So, is the Rust bad or good? It’s neither. It’s a mediocre programming language with thousands of man-month put into its development — this fact alone makes Rust a viable tool"? No it didn't.
  - EnPissant 11mo ago
    I 100% think LLMs were involved in its production, just not written wholesale.
    - byko3y 11mo ago
      It's 200% LLM used in production — like 10 hours of dialogs right before writing the article. I had much more hours of coversations with Rust fanboys and it was mostly a waste of time, they just would not try to negotiate on Rust's weak points. I would definitely not be able to write the article with only human support — it's really sad to conclude that LLM-s are much better assistants because they are neutral and objective.
      - EnPissant 11mo ago
        Were any parts copy pasted from LLM output (and possible changed after)?
        byko3y 11mo ago
        Why would I do this and why do you think I did? Or do you feel like my english is so bad I'm probably writing ransom note out of pieces of LLM output? I can ensure you I'm good enough at typing and talking in english to not require copy-pasting. Do you have any quotes from the article that you feel like were copy-pasted from LLM?
- byko3y 11mo ago
  Yeah, the article was written in Markdown, LLM-s employ markdown formatting too. It's not a typical length of LLM response — it's approx 1.5-2.0 times longer than a typical long LLM response. Not easily noticable to a human being though, indeed.
  - kstrauser 11mo ago
    I disagreed with your article, but this critique of it is just goofy. I also write in Markdown, use lists where appropriate, and — gasp! — write em dashes where appropriate.
- sundarurfriend 11mo ago
  soon we ll hafta rite lyk dis and maybe தேவையே இல்லாம include other languages in the text, just so people won't automatically say it's AI written.
byko3y 11mo ago
Because it follows same structure as the one used by LLM-s. At least there is a reason to think so — before you've tried to actually read the article and realize LLM-s just don't write text like this... yet. Of course, this structure is also the one used by scientific articles, which I read a lot too, so I'm really inclined to follow this style. "Has the form of scientific article but statements are not precise = AI slop" — that's the implication. Funny fact: one of the reasons Qwen suggested my article is LLM-generated is because it considered link as impossible. I was so gaslit I opened the article and clicked the link. And it worked. Mic drop.
EnPissant 11mo ago
The ragebait part is because it feels more provocative than sincere. Some examples from the introduction: > Its compilation is slow. I mean SLOW. Slower than C++. I know over years Rust became several times faster, but objectively we need it to be two orders of magnitude faster, not just two times. I've done significant C++ and Rust and Rust compiles WAY faster than C++ for day-to-day incremental compilation. C++ suffers from the header inclusion problem and modules may as well not exist because you can't practically use them. > Arc<Mutex<Box<T>>> This is intentionally over complicated, there is no reason for the Box to be there. > You cannot get 99.999% reliability with Rust — it crashes all the time. What does this even mean?
- paulddraper 11mo ago
  I don’t disagree with the rage bait assessment.
- byko3y 11mo ago
  >I've done significant C++ and Rust and Rust compiles WAY faster than C++ for day-to-day incremental compilation. C++ suffers from the header inclusion problem and modules may as well not exist because you can't practically use them. It really depends on what you are compiling. I did lots of C/C++ that compiled 50k lines of code in 10 seconds FROM SCRATCH — I doubt you can do it in Rust. To be fair, headers in that project were somewhat optimized for compilation speed (not "hardcore", but "somewhat"). People forgot how fast C/C++ compilation can be without 10 Boost includes in each module. >This is intentionally over complicated, there is no reason for the Box to be there. Arc<RwLock<Option<T>>> — sounds good now? Don't get me wrong — C++ can be just as horrible, but Rust made it a rule, you can only write your program like this. >What does this even mean? I've already answered above, but I can repeat: there are runtime models that allow crash and recover, there are models that crash and limp. In Rust there is only one model of crash: you just crash.
  - aw1621107 11mo ago
    > I doubt you can do it in Rust. You absolutely can. You'll need to pay attention to how things are structured and not all codebases will be equally amenable to such techniques, but those are shared characteristics with C++. As you said, "It really depends on what you are compiling." > In Rust there is only one model of crash: you just crash. Hardly. Why else would catch_unwind exist?

Why do you think that?

deadbabe 11mo ago

lists, em dashes, headings and typical length of LLM response.

tptacek 11mo ago
You think an AI wrote "So, is the Rust bad or good? It’s neither. It’s a mediocre programming language with thousands of man-month put into its development — this fact alone makes Rust a viable tool"? No it didn't.
- EnPissant 11mo ago
  I 100% think LLMs were involved in its production, just not written wholesale.
  - byko3y 11mo ago
    It's 200% LLM used in production — like 10 hours of dialogs right before writing the article. I had much more hours of coversations with Rust fanboys and it was mostly a waste of time, they just would not try to negotiate on Rust's weak points. I would definitely not be able to write the article with only human support — it's really sad to conclude that LLM-s are much better assistants because they are neutral and objective.
    - EnPissant 11mo ago
      Were any parts copy pasted from LLM output (and possible changed after)?
      - byko3y 11mo ago
        Why would I do this and why do you think I did? Or do you feel like my english is so bad I'm probably writing ransom note out of pieces of LLM output? I can ensure you I'm good enough at typing and talking in english to not require copy-pasting. Do you have any quotes from the article that you feel like were copy-pasted from LLM?
byko3y 11mo ago
Yeah, the article was written in Markdown, LLM-s employ markdown formatting too. It's not a typical length of LLM response — it's approx 1.5-2.0 times longer than a typical long LLM response. Not easily noticable to a human being though, indeed.
- kstrauser 11mo ago
  I disagreed with your article, but this critique of it is just goofy. I also write in Markdown, use lists where appropriate, and — gasp! — write em dashes where appropriate.
sundarurfriend 11mo ago
soon we ll hafta rite lyk dis and maybe தேவையே இல்லாம include other languages in the text, just so people won't automatically say it's AI written.

byko3y 11mo ago

Because it follows same structure as the one used by LLM-s. At least there is a reason to think so — before you've tried to actually read the article and realize LLM-s just don't write text like this... yet. Of course, this structure is also the one used by scientific articles, which I read a lot too, so I'm really inclined to follow this style. "Has the form of scientific article but statements are not precise = AI slop" — that's the implication. Funny fact: one of the reasons Qwen suggested my article is LLM-generated is because it considered link as impossible. I was so gaslit I opened the article and clicked the link. And it worked. Mic drop.

EnPissant 11mo ago

The ragebait part is because it feels more provocative than sincere. Some examples from the introduction: > Its compilation is slow. I mean SLOW. Slower than C++. I know over years Rust became several times faster, but objectively we need it to be two orders of magnitude faster, not just two times. I've done significant C++ and Rust and Rust compiles WAY faster than C++ for day-to-day incremental compilation. C++ suffers from the header inclusion problem and modules may as well not exist because you can't practically use them. > Arc<Mutex<Box<T>>> This is intentionally over complicated, there is no reason for the Box to be there. > You cannot get 99.999% reliability with Rust — it crashes all the time. What does this even mean?

paulddraper 11mo ago
I don’t disagree with the rage bait assessment.
byko3y 11mo ago
>I've done significant C++ and Rust and Rust compiles WAY faster than C++ for day-to-day incremental compilation. C++ suffers from the header inclusion problem and modules may as well not exist because you can't practically use them. It really depends on what you are compiling. I did lots of C/C++ that compiled 50k lines of code in 10 seconds FROM SCRATCH — I doubt you can do it in Rust. To be fair, headers in that project were somewhat optimized for compilation speed (not "hardcore", but "somewhat"). People forgot how fast C/C++ compilation can be without 10 Boost includes in each module. >This is intentionally over complicated, there is no reason for the Box to be there. Arc<RwLock<Option<T>>> — sounds good now? Don't get me wrong — C++ can be just as horrible, but Rust made it a rule, you can only write your program like this. >What does this even mean? I've already answered above, but I can repeat: there are runtime models that allow crash and recover, there are models that crash and limp. In Rust there is only one model of crash: you just crash.
- aw1621107 11mo ago
  > I doubt you can do it in Rust. You absolutely can. You'll need to pay attention to how things are structured and not all codebases will be equally amenable to such techniques, but those are shared characteristics with C++. As you said, "It really depends on what you are compiling." > In Rust there is only one model of crash: you just crash. Hardly. Why else would catch_unwind exist?