3 ms·

Agree. From the article: > Here's my favorite part, though. Digging into the data, one of the first things that jumped out at me with blinding clarity was that

Agree. From the article: > Here's my favorite part, though. Digging into the data, one of the first things that jumped out at me with blinding clarity was that the worst release, by far, in rsync history was entirely prior to the introduction of Claude ... And yet nobody noticed. Language really does suggest the article's author does have a dog in this fight and is cloaking opinion in fancy statistics jargon. "Blinding clarity"? All you have to do is draw a plot. And anyway, v3.4.1 was 2025-01-16, technically well within the AI assisted coding era and before attribution was becoming standard practice.

iandinwoodie 4mo ago
Also from the article: > "Claude clearly made things worse" &emdash; the main claim This article was clearly generated by AI, yet I found no mention/attribution of that by author. How likely is it than someone who vibe codes articles would also vibe code the underlying analysis and be eager to accept an outcome that is highly validating of that person’s workflow? I’d say very.
- int_19h 4mo ago
  Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here. Also, humans do use em dashes, just FYI.
  - davrosthedalek 4mo ago
    Yes, I do for example. And the author discussed the use of AI pretty exhaustively in point 0 of the post.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - latexr 4mo ago
    > Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here. Data without interpretation is irrelevant, and correct numbers can be interpreted wrongly, either on purpose or by mistake. I’m not saying any of that happened here, only that “are the numbers wrong” is not the only thing that is relevant. > humans do use em dashes, just FYI. Your parent comment is not complaining about em dashes, they are pointing out the article has a literal “&emdash;” in it.
- nerevarthelame 4mo ago
  He did admit as much: > "The scripts used to fetch the data, collate it into a DuckDB database file, construct the views on that DB, and then do the statistical analysis on that data, were indeed written by GLM 5.1, as was the HTML and much of the original prose for the final report webpage you're looking at right now."
  - davrosthedalek 4mo ago
    But: "After posting this on Hacker News and recieving [sic] almost no substantive input, discussion, or response on the actual content of the article, I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice. If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves." So rewritten in his own voice. Maybe the m-dashes are from GLM, maybe from the author.
- yorwba 4mo ago
  The &emdash; is probably human error, other parts of the HTML correctly use — or Unicode em-dashes. Also: https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b3f50809b164ef7025b2ee35573fe98a2e0d8 https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b...

iandinwoodie 4mo ago

Also from the article: > "Claude clearly made things worse" &emdash; the main claim This article was clearly generated by AI, yet I found no mention/attribution of that by author. How likely is it than someone who vibe codes articles would also vibe code the underlying analysis and be eager to accept an outcome that is highly validating of that person’s workflow? I’d say very.

int_19h 4mo ago
Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here. Also, humans do use em dashes, just FYI.
- davrosthedalek 4mo ago
  Yes, I do for example. And the author discussed the use of AI pretty exhaustively in point 0 of the post.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- latexr 4mo ago
  > Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here. Data without interpretation is irrelevant, and correct numbers can be interpreted wrongly, either on purpose or by mistake. I’m not saying any of that happened here, only that “are the numbers wrong” is not the only thing that is relevant. > humans do use em dashes, just FYI. Your parent comment is not complaining about em dashes, they are pointing out the article has a literal “&emdash;” in it.
nerevarthelame 4mo ago
He did admit as much: > "The scripts used to fetch the data, collate it into a DuckDB database file, construct the views on that DB, and then do the statistical analysis on that data, were indeed written by GLM 5.1, as was the HTML and much of the original prose for the final report webpage you're looking at right now."
- davrosthedalek 4mo ago
  But: "After posting this on Hacker News and recieving [sic] almost no substantive input, discussion, or response on the actual content of the article, I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice. If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves." So rewritten in his own voice. Maybe the m-dashes are from GLM, maybe from the author.
yorwba 4mo ago
The &emdash; is probably human error, other parts of the HTML correctly use — or Unicode em-dashes. Also: https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b3f50809b164ef7025b2ee35573fe98a2e0d8 https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b...