5 ms·

> on Apple Silicon, a WebAssembly module's linear memory can be shared directly with the GPU: no copies, no serialization, no intermediate buffers enhance > n

by trueno 6mo ago

> on Apple Silicon, a WebAssembly module's linear memory can be shared directly with the GPU: no copies, no serialization, no intermediate buffers enhance > no copies, no serialization, no intermediate buffers would it kill people to write their own stuff why are we doing this. out of all the things people immediately cede to AI they cede their human ability to communicate and convey/share ideas. this timeline is bonkers.

rvz 6mo ago
This sort of obvious pattern is an instant AI dead give-away that I keep on seeing in hundreds of blogs and code posted on this site: "Here is X - it makes Y" "That's not X, it's Y." "...no this, no that, no X, no Y." Another way of telling via code is by deducing the experience of the author if they became an expert of a different language since...yesterday. There will be a time where it will be problematic for those who over-rely on AI and will struggle on on-site interviews with whiteboard tests.
- bensyverson 6mo ago
  I think the days of on-site interviews with whiteboard tests may be drawing to a close faster than you suspect
  - m00dy 6mo ago
    I also think we will never go back to good old days.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      It'll put the "everything old becomes new again" idea to the test.
  - JSR_FDED 6mo ago
    Huh, I’m 100% going to interview this way the next time I have to hire an engineer. I can’t think of a better way to get a sense of how a candidate reasons about things, and of their values - do they have a sense of responsibility, conscientiousness, team fit. All other things that could be LLM-mediated have no more signal.
    - andsoitis 6mo ago
      > I can’t think of a better way to get a sense of how a candidate reasons about things Some ideas to help you: ask the candidate something underspecified and watch what they do first. Do they ask clarifying questions, make their assumptions explicit? After they answer ask what would change their mind, where does that break down? Pick a topic they know and ask them to explain it to a smart non-engineer. Make them estimate something they can’t look up (forces them to decompose, bound, and calibrate). Once they’ve proposed a solution to a question, change the constraints to see if they can adapt or whether they’re stuck. What you want to evaluate is dynamic reasoning, adaptability.
  - z0r 6mo ago
    Is this implying that you don't believe people will hire programmers anymore?
  - jhayward 6mo ago
    Well, there is a long tradition of "testing" developer candidates by asking them to exhibit skills in tasks that they never, ever, do in their work. Like whiteboard coding. It doesn't have a great success record. I personally would rather they exhibited expert skills in using tools, and expressing their design insight as a part of that skillset.
Aurornis 6mo ago
I’ve become overly sensitive to it as well because it’s such a reliable indicator that there are other problems in the work. I’ve wasted so much time looking at interesting repos this year before discovering that one of the main claims was a hallucination, or that when I got to the specific part of the codebase it just had a big note from the LLM that’s it’s a placeholder until it can figure out how to do the requested thing. The people who have AI write their articles don’t care if it works or if it’s correct. They’re trying to get jobs and want something quick and interesting that will appeal to a lazy hiring manager. We’re just taking the bait too.
- trueno 6mo ago
  > The people who have AI write their articles don’t care if it works or if it’s correct. I'd build on this: The people who have AI write their articles very likely don't know how their thing works or is correct. High chance they'll stumble when they are expected to speak about whatever it is they are presenting with some authority and demonstration of knowledge. Human to human, not being able to do that = obliterates trust. Places it somewhere near the realm of misinformation, which everyone unilaterally has no interest in consuming. Good luck to people who want to fluff expertise and present as more-capable for job prospects, the world is shit and I know there's more people who need income than there are jobs that provide for our basic human needs, but this level of AI crutching is just going to bode poorly for those who think this is going to get them where they need to go.
notepad0x90 6mo ago
I don't know, to me your sentiment sounds a lot like how back in the day they used to say "you can't just use a calculator all the time, use your brain and show the work on pen and paper". humans have been using tools to communicate since pre-history. language itself is one tool of communication invented to supersede body-language and grunting and noises. the thought and idea is theirs, it was communicated. Would it be that much different if they used a spellchecker extensively to edit their work? I get why you're annoyed but is it really such a big deal? random people aren't to blame for whatever other annoyances "AI slop" has created.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- rdedev 6mo ago
  > language itself is one tool of communication invented to supersede body-language and grunting and noises That's a pretty utilitarian view of language. How would it feel if everyone spoke and wrote like a PR representative? This is what an article written by an LLM is starting to sound like. I'm even willing to argue that the way in which you convey your ideas is as important as the idea itself. Like we could all be eating soylent for our daily nutritional requirements but we don't. The taste of the food we eat is important. It's the same with writing for me
  - notepad0x90 6mo ago
    I wouldn't make that big of a deal out of it for sure. People already sound that way to me. Everyone saying "have a nice day" when they don't mean it, and don't get me started on office-speak. You don't see me throwing a fit everytime says "let's circle back on this" or "let's take this offline". The LLMs are trained to not ruffle any feathers, similar to office speak. you get that, i get that. the meaning of OP is well communicated. Why are you making a big deal out of it? I don't think all this crusading has any place in a technical discussion.
- ben-schaaf 6mo ago
  > the thought and idea is theirs, it was communicated Are they? I don't know how much they used AI, the entire article could be written from a one sentence prompt and so I'd argue that the thoughts and ideas are not their own. This isn't like using a spell checker, it's like using a ghost writer.

by trueno 6mo ago

rvz 6mo ago

This sort of obvious pattern is an instant AI dead give-away that I keep on seeing in hundreds of blogs and code posted on this site: "Here is X - it makes Y" "That's not X, it's Y." "...no this, no that, no X, no Y." Another way of telling via code is by deducing the experience of the author if they became an expert of a different language since...yesterday. There will be a time where it will be problematic for those who over-rely on AI and will struggle on on-site interviews with whiteboard tests.

bensyverson 6mo ago
I think the days of on-site interviews with whiteboard tests may be drawing to a close faster than you suspect
- m00dy 6mo ago
  I also think we will never go back to good old days.
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    It'll put the "everything old becomes new again" idea to the test.
- JSR_FDED 6mo ago
  Huh, I’m 100% going to interview this way the next time I have to hire an engineer. I can’t think of a better way to get a sense of how a candidate reasons about things, and of their values - do they have a sense of responsibility, conscientiousness, team fit. All other things that could be LLM-mediated have no more signal.
  - andsoitis 6mo ago
    > I can’t think of a better way to get a sense of how a candidate reasons about things Some ideas to help you: ask the candidate something underspecified and watch what they do first. Do they ask clarifying questions, make their assumptions explicit? After they answer ask what would change their mind, where does that break down? Pick a topic they know and ask them to explain it to a smart non-engineer. Make them estimate something they can’t look up (forces them to decompose, bound, and calibrate). Once they’ve proposed a solution to a question, change the constraints to see if they can adapt or whether they’re stuck. What you want to evaluate is dynamic reasoning, adaptability.
- z0r 6mo ago
  Is this implying that you don't believe people will hire programmers anymore?
- jhayward 6mo ago
  Well, there is a long tradition of "testing" developer candidates by asking them to exhibit skills in tasks that they never, ever, do in their work. Like whiteboard coding. It doesn't have a great success record. I personally would rather they exhibited expert skills in using tools, and expressing their design insight as a part of that skillset.

Aurornis 6mo ago

I’ve become overly sensitive to it as well because it’s such a reliable indicator that there are other problems in the work. I’ve wasted so much time looking at interesting repos this year before discovering that one of the main claims was a hallucination, or that when I got to the specific part of the codebase it just had a big note from the LLM that’s it’s a placeholder until it can figure out how to do the requested thing. The people who have AI write their articles don’t care if it works or if it’s correct. They’re trying to get jobs and want something quick and interesting that will appeal to a lazy hiring manager. We’re just taking the bait too.

trueno 6mo ago
> The people who have AI write their articles don’t care if it works or if it’s correct. I'd build on this: The people who have AI write their articles very likely don't know how their thing works or is correct. High chance they'll stumble when they are expected to speak about whatever it is they are presenting with some authority and demonstration of knowledge. Human to human, not being able to do that = obliterates trust. Places it somewhere near the realm of misinformation, which everyone unilaterally has no interest in consuming. Good luck to people who want to fluff expertise and present as more-capable for job prospects, the world is shit and I know there's more people who need income than there are jobs that provide for our basic human needs, but this level of AI crutching is just going to bode poorly for those who think this is going to get them where they need to go.

notepad0x90 6mo ago

I don't know, to me your sentiment sounds a lot like how back in the day they used to say "you can't just use a calculator all the time, use your brain and show the work on pen and paper". humans have been using tools to communicate since pre-history. language itself is one tool of communication invented to supersede body-language and grunting and noises. the thought and idea is theirs, it was communicated. Would it be that much different if they used a spellchecker extensively to edit their work? I get why you're annoyed but is it really such a big deal? random people aren't to blame for whatever other annoyances "AI slop" has created.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
rdedev 6mo ago
> language itself is one tool of communication invented to supersede body-language and grunting and noises That's a pretty utilitarian view of language. How would it feel if everyone spoke and wrote like a PR representative? This is what an article written by an LLM is starting to sound like. I'm even willing to argue that the way in which you convey your ideas is as important as the idea itself. Like we could all be eating soylent for our daily nutritional requirements but we don't. The taste of the food we eat is important. It's the same with writing for me
- notepad0x90 6mo ago
  I wouldn't make that big of a deal out of it for sure. People already sound that way to me. Everyone saying "have a nice day" when they don't mean it, and don't get me started on office-speak. You don't see me throwing a fit everytime says "let's circle back on this" or "let's take this offline". The LLMs are trained to not ruffle any feathers, similar to office speak. you get that, i get that. the meaning of OP is well communicated. Why are you making a big deal out of it? I don't think all this crusading has any place in a technical discussion.
ben-schaaf 6mo ago
> the thought and idea is theirs, it was communicated Are they? I don't know how much they used AI, the entire article could be written from a one sentence prompt and so I'd argue that the thoughts and ideas are not their own. This isn't like using a spell checker, it's like using a ghost writer.