6 ms·
Some notes on this: - I used GLM 5.1 to help with the coding and math for this. - However, I explicitly dictated where the data should be pulled from (GitHub,
by logicprog 4mo ago
Some notes on this:
- I used GLM 5.1 to help with the coding and math for this.
- However, I explicitly dictated where the data should be pulled from (GitHub, Bugzilla, mailing list), how it should be tagged and grouped, and what data to look at (e.g. bugs instead of regressions)
- Additionally, I consulted with my wife, who has a master's degree in statistics from Penn State University for what sort of statistical methodology would be justified for this very limited data set, while still giving as much information as possible.
- I know the website looks like we stereotypically consider vibe-coded websites to look, but I actually explicitly asked for that. The original HTML design looked like a website from 1995, and I just prefer how this looks. It's pretty!
- jchw 4mo agoI really struggle to believe you wrote text like: > A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement.
- noctuid 4mo ago[flagged]
- logicprog 4mo agoNo, I didn't write the text itself. I'm typically significantly more verbose and elliptical, and more than that, the numbers and methodology changed often enough over the course of the last couple days I was working on this because I was trying to get it to be as accurate and fair as possible that trying to keep the whole thing up to date manually would have been problematic.
- jchw 4mo agoSorry to say but I'm absolutely certain I would've preferred to read your worst attempt at a write-up over the grating utter shite LLMs output. It's not even a question, this is unreadable.
- logicprog 4mo agoThat's interesting; IME, most people get equally angry and are as likely to disengage with a superior tone over my autism-infodump verbose essay prose as with LLM output.
- ok_dad 4mo agoAt least when I write an autistic info dump people know I wrote it. Why give your voice over to a corpo slop factory? Heck, I use LLM assistance for coding and I’ve even coded up whole features with the clankers, but giving it the right to speak for me is too much. I should also add that I read and understand every line of clanker output that I publish for others, so I’m not a vibe coder either, just adhd.
- skeledrew 4mo agoI read it perfectly fine. I see content, not style.
- jchw 4mo agoWhen you say, "I see content, not style," you are separating what is being said from how it is being said. While it is great that you can extract the core message, you are missing a fundamental truth about writing: style and content are rarely completely separate. Writing involves both. Poor prose does not just make writing ugly — it creates friction, obscures nuance, and introduces ambiguity. You can eat a gourmet meal out of a dirty paper bowl. You still get the calories, but the delivery mechanism definitely impacts the experience and the perceived value of the food. Same food, different response. See? I can write slop too, I don't even need to burn down a forest to do it. If you are OK with every fucking thing being written exactly like this, good for you. I am not.
- skeledrew 4mo agoThe internet is going to really suck for you if you keep that attitude, because LLM use will only increase. Though also maybe not too much as the LLM-isms will likely be fine-tuned out of them to the point that the only way you'll be sure something is done with one is if the author left a note saying such. But maybe that'll make it suck even more as then you'd be without a definite target most of the time, always wondering how much of the thing you're reading is by human and how much by LLM...
- moomoo11 4mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- aozgaa 4mo agoIn general, it seems HN does not like to read llm-generated articles. I ran into this myself when using an llm to edit some stuff I wrote. At the time, I found this a bit irritating, but with a few weeks time I see the merit. The informational content tends to fall into “derivative” territory when LLM’s write stuff. And people are here for novelty and some socialization. Also LLM prose seems optimized for engagement rather than concise communication. Takes longer to sift through linguistic boilerplate to get to the point. (The quoted bit being a case in point)
- jchw 4mo agoI just find it to be utter dreck. It has one of the most agitating prose styles I've ever seen. I would legitimately rather read actual broken English than the cliché polished turds Claude pops out. I am not an LLM hater, I think these tools are pretty impressive and often even useful, but even if I didn't care about the fact that I want to read communication from humans and not robots (and I do care about that, FWIW) I just find the current LLMs are horrid at writing. And while the comments are always flooded with people like me, the upvotes seem to tell a different story; clearly LLM writing really does appeal to some people. Or idk, maybe a lot of people who vote on stories and don't comment don't actually read them. Hard to say for sure.
- grey-area 4mo agoI think it’s just people don’t read before voting, they upvote on the headline and then come to discuss it here.
- fireflash38 4mo agoWhy would anyone spend time reading something that someone couldn't even spend the time to write themselves?
- otabdeveloper4 4mo agoI don't even know what "just placement" is. (I need a better model to translate from llmese.)
- grey-area 4mo agoSometimes the things word generators say just don’t make sense.
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoI'd suggest writing the lead-in yourself and boxing AI prose separately from your prose in the analysis for future articles. You can give the humanized summary/eli5/key points, then have "details according to AI" boxes that go into nitty-gritty. People seem to dislike AI ghostwriting, but most of these people still use AI, so perhaps keeping authorship clear and separate will avoid some of the flak.
- logicprog 4mo agoThis seems fair. Of course, now that I've posted this here once, I doubt it'll get constructive engagement again, but I can at least improve this for the future
- bri3k 4mo agoEven if everything in the article is true you should not use AI to write this. A analogy would be tobacco company report on how smoking isn’t so bad for you.