Linus Torvalds used Claude Code to build a Linux page cache fix that hit 23x read throughput, but kernel reviewers found a race before anything merged.
English would prefer killer child instead of child killer for the former because killer can behave as a qualifier.
Similarly, AI can act as a qualifier and while sports journalist is valid, any journalist writing about AI code, AI agent, AI whatever must realize what AI journalist sounds like
Not really… “AI journalist” might refer to a plain old astroturfing spambot, or to one piloting a reverse centaur, but it’s still the same old spambot when it comes to it, and it’ll still be spewing the same worthless slop, so the distinction is mostly moot, merely making the latter option a bit more tragic.
it is a real person, but GPTZero gives it a 100/100, and given she’s a proud “prompt engineer” I’m inclined to believe she doesn’t do all the writing without… “assistance”.
This happens when an LLM reads a bunch of pages with stuff it doesn’t have much internal knowledge about, and then tries to summarize that into an article.
Books contain knowledge, I doubt you will find many English scholars that disagree with that. In the same way, LLMs contain knowledge as well, they just also have the ability to output that knowledge in a more dynamic way than a book. You can argue some words that are more anthropomorphic, but knowledge has been attributed to inanimate objects for millennia.
You’re not wrong. This entire story is not unique in any capacity honestly. The story even points out other developers have tried to fix this issue with problem.
The only thing that changed, is that someone saw this time it said “AI”, and got a boner thinking about the upvotes and attention they could receive
It’s just a super weird article. It goes into extreme detail randomly, mentioning specific function names and memory mechanisms, but doesn’t explain any of it.
This happens when an LLM reads a bunch of pages with stuff it doesn’t have much internal knowledge about, and then tries to summarize that into an article.
It’s either written by a LLM that’s been instructed to drag the little info it had forever, or written by a human that is very convincing at producing robotic, unnaturally articulated text.
Title, summary, first paragraph are basically the same sentence slightly reformulated, and then the rest is going back to every bit of it like a list of bullet points, almost failing to add anything valuable.
I found it painful to parse, and it really does not feel human-like.
AI written article
What do you base that claim on?
It says:
https://thenewstack.io/author/amanda-caswell/
Right there in your link, it says she’s AI:
/s
I believe it should be spelled “meat proxy”
I just saw someone call it “cuck coding” (vs “vibe coding”), because you just sit there.
This would make meat proxies Code Cucks instead.
“AI journalist” is just as confusing as “child killer”
Is it an AI pretending to be a journo (is it a child who’s a killer), or is it a journo writing about AI (is it a killer targeting children)?
English would prefer killer child instead of child killer for the former because killer can behave as a qualifier.
Similarly, AI can act as a qualifier and while sports journalist is valid, any journalist writing about AI code, AI agent, AI whatever must realize what AI journalist sounds like
word play is fun
Not really… “AI journalist” might refer to a plain old astroturfing spambot, or to one piloting a reverse centaur, but it’s still the same old spambot when it comes to it, and it’ll still be spewing the same worthless slop, so the distinction is mostly moot, merely making the latter option a bit more tragic.
Goddammit you had me there until the /s. 🤣
it is a real person, but GPTZero gives it a 100/100, and given she’s a proud “prompt engineer” I’m inclined to believe she doesn’t do all the writing without… “assistance”.
LLMs do not have knowledge about anything.
Books contain knowledge, I doubt you will find many English scholars that disagree with that. In the same way, LLMs contain knowledge as well, they just also have the ability to output that knowledge in a more dynamic way than a book. You can argue some words that are more anthropomorphic, but knowledge has been attributed to inanimate objects for millennia.
Tell me you don’t know how deep learning works without telling me you don’t know how deep learning works.
Tell me you have zero education in epistemology without telling me you have zero education in epistemology.
Not justification for the accusation.
Everything is possibly AI slob, that doesn’t justify calling everything AI slob.
This comment is ai slop.
these downvotes are ai slop
You’re not wrong. This entire story is not unique in any capacity honestly. The story even points out other developers have tried to fix this issue with problem.
The only thing that changed, is that someone saw this time it said “AI”, and got a boner thinking about the upvotes and attention they could receive
It’s just a super weird article. It goes into extreme detail randomly, mentioning specific function names and memory mechanisms, but doesn’t explain any of it.
This happens when an LLM reads a bunch of pages with stuff it doesn’t have much internal knowledge about, and then tries to summarize that into an article.
It’s either written by a LLM that’s been instructed to drag the little info it had forever, or written by a human that is very convincing at producing robotic, unnaturally articulated text.
Title, summary, first paragraph are basically the same sentence slightly reformulated, and then the rest is going back to every bit of it like a list of bullet points, almost failing to add anything valuable.
I found it painful to parse, and it really does not feel human-like.