4 ms·

This article is excessively LLM written to the point that there’s barely any real information in between all of the unnecessary pie charts and repeated points.

This article is excessively LLM written to the point that there’s barely any real information in between all of the unnecessary pie charts and repeated points. This move is being executed too broadly, in my opinion, but the “bad labs” problem especially in China is widely known in the industry. If you spend any time in the electronics industry at smaller companies you will encounter people who know Chinese labs that will give your product passing test results every time as long as you’re not so far past the limits that it’s too obvious.

chambertime 6mo ago
Thanks for that insight on how the Chinese labs are perceived amongst hardware engineers. I know pie charts are decisive. I thought they were visually helpful in this instance.
- skeeter2020 6mo ago
  the headline hints that there's some sort of non-obvious factor that's going to be revealled. I scrolled past countless redundant and information-sparse graph-like figures and never found it; moved on. If you've only got a paragraph worth of information to share, say it and let us get on with our lives.
  - chambertime 6mo ago
    Well I couldn't find any other thorough dataset on this topic, so in that sense this is non-obvious since it took weeks to assemble the information. And it was fun doing it using the LLM Wiki technique.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > it was fun doing it using the LLM Wiki technique What is that?
      - chambertime 6mo ago
        https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519de94f https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519...
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Could you share the tools you used to do this? I'd love to organise my esoteric research side quests like this.
        chambertime 6mo ago
        Git + claude code in yolo mode. In the first prompt, I passed it Kaparthy's gist, and had it put together a high level plan of all of the sections that needed to be written to complete a vision I provided. Essentially put together a complete wiki on everything for getting global hardware certification. I then had it loop once an hour. It would pick the next wiki to write, research it, gather raw sources, and then synthesize the wiki for me and push. I could nudge it in between hours if I wanted.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Do you add this as a skill or permanent prompt, making it always maintain wikis in the background? Or do you direct it to make these only when you're in the project?
        chambertime 6mo ago
        There's skills if you want. I didn't want to do that since I don't feel like I need the smarts to work on the LLM wiki in every coding session. I like to keep my context clean and scoped to what I'm working on. I am running this in a long running session that spawns a subagent once an hour. So the context of the main session doesn't get out of control.
      - rnxrx 6mo ago
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > thought they were visually helpful in this instance If you're the author, can you comment on whether you used AI to write this? (Specifically, the text.) Where it might be suffering is in its presentation of a list of facts unorganised around any thesis. It took me until your China Question section to see the meat of your piece. If I had to suggest some edits, they would be making everything above that section more concise (by reducing the number of charts and/or moving them to footnotes) and adding a summarising subtitle. There are also jargon jumps, e.g. from TFAB to TCB. (I initially assumed the FAA was a TCB, the latter being a generic international term.) This compounds the lack of conciseness presented by the accredition-body breakdown and TCBs vc. test-only labs sections. If those sections were moved after your thesis section, you could dive into whether China's labs differ from the U.S. labs in those respects.
  - chambertime 6mo ago
    The content of the site is, as stated in my first comment and in the article itself, a nice looking wrapper on top of in essence, an llm Wiki that I put together with the help of Claude on the hardware certification universe. While I was building this data set out, I uncovered that the FCC had this vote today, so I thought it would be a good thing to share since it's timely and because I had just collected all of the relevant information tolp someone figure out how this impacts their hardware certification process (I use voice transcription to write this comment) I very much appreciate your feedback. As I look at the article now. I totally see what you're saying. I should have let off what was going on with the vote today since that's what I referenced in the title of the post on here.
mh- 6mo ago
Is that why the pie chart colors don't match the colors in the legend at all..?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- chambertime 6mo ago
  Thanks for catching that, fixed! Legend didnt match because I made a mistake when I tried to clean up the contrast in the pie chart.
FrustratedMonky 6mo ago
I've noticed a trend of calling every single article "This is AI or LLM, I can't stand it". And really, you can't tell. Nobody can tell. Humans write badly and blandly also. It's just a trope at this point. No, you're comment is an LLM.
- Night_Thastus 6mo ago
  LLMs often have a distinct writing style. It's not guaranteed, you can get false positives and false negatives, but if you start paying attention it becomes obvious in many cases.
  - FrustratedMonky 6mo ago
    Yes, if you are using a generic LLM. But you can tell it to use different styles. To be formal or in-formal, to insert colloquialisms or to remove. People are depending on their own 'gut-sense' a lot, and not realizing they are really not correct. If you think all it takes is paying attention, then you are missing it. It's both more widely used than assumed, and also now obscuring what is non-AI.
    - zahlman 6mo ago
      > But you can tell it to use different styles. To be formal or in-formal, to insert colloquialisms or to remove. And when you get it right, the result doesn't get called AI generated. > People are depending on their own 'gut-sense' a lot, and not realizing they are really not correct. TFA is very obvious about it. A human who writes like this should be ashamed to do so, and should endeavour to understand why the writing comes across as "generic LLM"-like and fix it. We have reached a point where people can end up training their writing on generic LLM output. This is a bad thing, because it's bad output. Even beyond any clues from writing style, the general presentation is bad. It presents far too many facts and figures without giving anyone a good reason to care about most of them. And then it ends with a section on a separate topic (how to choose a lab, rather than how they're distributed across the world). Most importantly, though, the submission is presented with a different title that implies a different purpose to the article that is not elaborated in the article. I would have expected personal insight a) on why people should care about the FCC's action (there is no mention of that action at all); b) on what the process was like of collecting this data. And I would have expected, you know, mapping of the lab locations rather than bar charts giving geographic breakdowns.
doctorpangloss 6mo ago
i think it's better to flag the article and move on. the author's replies in the thread are also LLM authored. and nothing in the article makes any sense.
- chambertime 6mo ago
  [flagged]
milleramp 6mo ago
Yes when qualifying new equipment often the source of failing emissions is the power supply (or some other third party device) that has already 'passed' testing.
- chambertime 6mo ago
  Interesting so like a power supply module that has already gotten full modular approval? Do you have an example link to one of those? Thanks
EnderWT 6mo ago
The search site they point to (https://markready.io/labs https://markready.io/labs) also lists incorrect locations on the map for labs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES, INC. shows on the map in Littleton, Colorado but is actually located in Littleton, Massachusetts.
- chambertime 6mo ago
  Thanks for finding a data quality issue and reporting it.

chambertime 6mo ago

Thanks for that insight on how the Chinese labs are perceived amongst hardware engineers. I know pie charts are decisive. I thought they were visually helpful in this instance.

skeeter2020 6mo ago
the headline hints that there's some sort of non-obvious factor that's going to be revealled. I scrolled past countless redundant and information-sparse graph-like figures and never found it; moved on. If you've only got a paragraph worth of information to share, say it and let us get on with our lives.
- chambertime 6mo ago
  Well I couldn't find any other thorough dataset on this topic, so in that sense this is non-obvious since it took weeks to assemble the information. And it was fun doing it using the LLM Wiki technique.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > it was fun doing it using the LLM Wiki technique What is that?
    - chambertime 6mo ago
      https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519de94f https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519...
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Could you share the tools you used to do this? I'd love to organise my esoteric research side quests like this.
        chambertime 6mo ago
        Git + claude code in yolo mode. In the first prompt, I passed it Kaparthy's gist, and had it put together a high level plan of all of the sections that needed to be written to complete a vision I provided. Essentially put together a complete wiki on everything for getting global hardware certification. I then had it loop once an hour. It would pick the next wiki to write, research it, gather raw sources, and then synthesize the wiki for me and push. I could nudge it in between hours if I wanted.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Do you add this as a skill or permanent prompt, making it always maintain wikis in the background? Or do you direct it to make these only when you're in the project?
        chambertime 6mo ago
        There's skills if you want. I didn't want to do that since I don't feel like I need the smarts to work on the LLM wiki in every coding session. I like to keep my context clean and scoped to what I'm working on. I am running this in a long running session that spawns a subagent once an hour. So the context of the main session doesn't get out of control.
    - rnxrx 6mo ago
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> thought they were visually helpful in this instance If you're the author, can you comment on whether you used AI to write this? (Specifically, the text.) Where it might be suffering is in its presentation of a list of facts unorganised around any thesis. It took me until your China Question section to see the meat of your piece. If I had to suggest some edits, they would be making everything above that section more concise (by reducing the number of charts and/or moving them to footnotes) and adding a summarising subtitle. There are also jargon jumps, e.g. from TFAB to TCB. (I initially assumed the FAA was a TCB, the latter being a generic international term.) This compounds the lack of conciseness presented by the accredition-body breakdown and TCBs vc. test-only labs sections. If those sections were moved after your thesis section, you could dive into whether China's labs differ from the U.S. labs in those respects.
- chambertime 6mo ago
  The content of the site is, as stated in my first comment and in the article itself, a nice looking wrapper on top of in essence, an llm Wiki that I put together with the help of Claude on the hardware certification universe. While I was building this data set out, I uncovered that the FCC had this vote today, so I thought it would be a good thing to share since it's timely and because I had just collected all of the relevant information tolp someone figure out how this impacts their hardware certification process (I use voice transcription to write this comment) I very much appreciate your feedback. As I look at the article now. I totally see what you're saying. I should have let off what was going on with the vote today since that's what I referenced in the title of the post on here.

mh- 6mo ago

Is that why the pie chart colors don't match the colors in the legend at all..?

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
chambertime 6mo ago
Thanks for catching that, fixed! Legend didnt match because I made a mistake when I tried to clean up the contrast in the pie chart.

FrustratedMonky 6mo ago

I've noticed a trend of calling every single article "This is AI or LLM, I can't stand it". And really, you can't tell. Nobody can tell. Humans write badly and blandly also. It's just a trope at this point. No, you're comment is an LLM.

Night_Thastus 6mo ago
LLMs often have a distinct writing style. It's not guaranteed, you can get false positives and false negatives, but if you start paying attention it becomes obvious in many cases.
- FrustratedMonky 6mo ago
  Yes, if you are using a generic LLM. But you can tell it to use different styles. To be formal or in-formal, to insert colloquialisms or to remove. People are depending on their own 'gut-sense' a lot, and not realizing they are really not correct. If you think all it takes is paying attention, then you are missing it. It's both more widely used than assumed, and also now obscuring what is non-AI.
  - zahlman 6mo ago
    > But you can tell it to use different styles. To be formal or in-formal, to insert colloquialisms or to remove. And when you get it right, the result doesn't get called AI generated. > People are depending on their own 'gut-sense' a lot, and not realizing they are really not correct. TFA is very obvious about it. A human who writes like this should be ashamed to do so, and should endeavour to understand why the writing comes across as "generic LLM"-like and fix it. We have reached a point where people can end up training their writing on generic LLM output. This is a bad thing, because it's bad output. Even beyond any clues from writing style, the general presentation is bad. It presents far too many facts and figures without giving anyone a good reason to care about most of them. And then it ends with a section on a separate topic (how to choose a lab, rather than how they're distributed across the world). Most importantly, though, the submission is presented with a different title that implies a different purpose to the article that is not elaborated in the article. I would have expected personal insight a) on why people should care about the FCC's action (there is no mention of that action at all); b) on what the process was like of collecting this data. And I would have expected, you know, mapping of the lab locations rather than bar charts giving geographic breakdowns.

doctorpangloss 6mo ago

i think it's better to flag the article and move on. the author's replies in the thread are also LLM authored. and nothing in the article makes any sense.

chambertime 6mo ago
[flagged]

milleramp 6mo ago

Yes when qualifying new equipment often the source of failing emissions is the power supply (or some other third party device) that has already 'passed' testing.

chambertime 6mo ago
Interesting so like a power supply module that has already gotten full modular approval? Do you have an example link to one of those? Thanks

EnderWT 6mo ago

The search site they point to (https://markready.io/labs https://markready.io/labs) also lists incorrect locations on the map for labs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES, INC. shows on the map in Littleton, Colorado but is actually located in Littleton, Massachusetts.

chambertime 6mo ago
Thanks for finding a data quality issue and reporting it.