This article looked interesting, but I bounced off it because the author appears to have made heavy use of an LLM to generate the text. How can I trust that the content is worth reading if a person didn't care enough to write it themselves?
it sounds nothing like AI to me! or AI has advanced to the point where it is hard to tell - e.g. I wouldn't expect a sentence like "You’re not just getting 64 bytes of memory. You’re entering into a complex contract with a specific allocator implementation." from one.
While I usually hate all the accusations of writings being LLM generated, I find your example a bit odd as that phasing is very typical of ChatGPT, especially when it was glazing everyone after that one update they had to reverent.
“It’s not just _________. It’s _________________.”
This was in almost every response doubling down on the users ideas and blowing things out of proportion. Stuff like…
“It’s not just a good idea. It’s a ground up rewriting of modern day physics.”
I picked up on it very quickly as well. Here are some more phrases that match that same LLM pattern. Sure, you could argue that someone actually writes like this, but after a while, it becomes excessive.
- Your program continues running with a corrupted heap - a time bomb that will explode unpredictably later.
- You’re not just getting 64 bytes of memory. You’re entering into a complex contract with a specific allocator implementation.
- The Metadata Mismatch
- If it finds glibc’s metadata instead, the best case is an immediate crash. The worst case? Silent corruption that manifests as mysterious bugs hours later.
- Virtual Memory: The Grand Illusion
- CPU Cache Architecture: The Hidden Performance Layer
- Spoiler: it’s even messier than you might think.
He's not the only one to point out these things that LLMs (currently) tend to output, but this is one of the shorter overviews of the tells you can spot.
Maybe I'm too paranoid! If it's not LLM then I don't think it's a very well-organized post though.
In addition to the emoji, things that jumped out at me were the pervasive use of bullet lists with bold labels and some specific text choices like
> Note: The bash scripts in tools/ dynamically generate Rust code for specialized analysis. This keeps the main codebase clean while allowing complex experiments.
But I did just edit my post to walk it back slightly.
As a non-native English speaker, 90% of my vocabulary come from technical books and SF and Fantasy novels. And due to an education done in French, I tend to prefer slightly complicated sentences forms.
If someone uses LLM to give their posts clarity or for spellchecking, I would aplaud them. What I don’t agree with, LLM use or no, is meandering and inconsistency.
Personally, it is one of the flags, yeah. It's been a while since I've tried ChatGPT or some of the others, but the structure and particular usage felt a lot like what I'd have gotten out of deepseek.
It's not a binary thing, of course, but it's definitely an LLM smell, IMO.
I mean, are we supposed not to? This doesn't read like a blog at all, it even has the dreaded "Key Takeaways" end section... The content is good and seems genuinely researched, but the text looks "AI enhanced", that's all
I'm not sure I agree, since there's words like "bookkeeper" that work fine—people just add a stop in front of the k sound and don't really think about it.
What is the point of this reply? This is a set of font files, not an oral history project. The creator is not claiming that this is evidence of their craft or taste.
In my experience, there are primarily two kinds of graphical designers. (I don't have direct experience working with font designers, but I imagine they are kind of similar.)
1. Those who are great at it. They also tend to be humble and understand that often excruciating and boring iteration is critical in producing something great. When you find someone like this, hold on to them, whatever the cost.
2. Those who really want to be great at it but kinda aren't. They tend to develop a smug asshole attitude, perhaps as a defense mechanism. They often think their first iteration is a masterpiece that cannot be improved upon.
And there's a much larger superset/variant of the last kind that essentially consists of smug assholes who define themselves as being able to appreciate "good design", which invariably is defined as Apple's style of design.
The question itself would be fine if the asker were actually interested in the answer. What's condescending is asking the question while already knowing the answer, with the unstated ulterior motive of getting the writer to change the method name.
No, Google Reader had a social layer where you could add friends, see items that they recommended, and comment on them. It was really great, but it was ruined by the migration to Google+ before Reader was actually killed.
My friends and I loved Buzz and lamented its loss. We tried Google+, but it couldn't even really do what Buzz could do, and it certainly didn't have any other killer features, so it didn't take.
These are craftier meanings, at least in US English.
"in school" often means you're a student (primary, secondary, or post-secondary school) in general. "He's still in school" can mean either he hasn't finished learning for the day(and thus not home yet or such) or that his education isn't finished.(X more years of standard mandatory education or X more years of University to finish) But it can also mean you're actively engaged in the activity, which I think I've heard people even use for remote-learning, though I don't feel that good about using it for remote-learning.
But if you say you're "in the school" you deliberately mean the educational building.
"in prison" sort of does the same thing, but since someone is locked up in prison and unable to leave, the distinction is much more rare. Let's say you're on the chain gang on the side of the road, even though they're really rare now. You're still "in prison".
If you said you were "in the prison", now you're not currently working a chain gang on the side of the road, but actively in a prison building.
This is interesting but I wish it included some information about the definition of "dissonance" being used. Of course xenharmonic stuff sometimes sounds out of tune just because it's unfamiliar, but also there's a temptation to go too far the other direction and assume that something must be exploring profound new harmonic space just because it sounds bad.
It's funny that you mention IFTTT because one of the inspirations for its creation was the book Thoughtless Acts?, which is full of photos like the ones in this post: https://ifttt.com/explore/ifttt-the-beginning
They used to give a copy to new employees, but it seems to be out of print now.
