I disagree. Hand-authored articles can be slop too. This research is great, and your subjective feelings about word cadence don't affect the information. I guarantee you read AI output every day and don't know it.
Hand-authored engagement or clout (LinkedIn) farming articles and corporate press releases are usually slop, most others aren't. I'd be surprised if corporate press releases today weren't largely AI-written - no one would know the difference.
The criticism can be restated, then, as “you used AI to write it, and unlike others who use AI to write things, you did a bad job directing it and editing the work.”
We know there’s interesting information in there. That’s not the point.
How news is delivered matters. If you don’t believe that, why would news outlets compete with each other? Even if the facts are the same, would you prefer to get them from a good or bad writer?
>would you prefer to get them from a good or bad writer?
I am smart enough to not need perfection. I just want the data. Write however tf you want, good'll'be read.
And so will LLMs.
I'll suggest adaptation.
>why would news outlets compete with each other?
Competition for the masses' con$umption$?
It seems to generally work; shouldn't have to obfuscate the `man` pages for this always-running daemon... how many people even know what `man`pages are (obviously not here)? how to access them? why they would even want to?
This is completely tangential to your point, but I'd bet that this daemon isn't always running. Apple is fond of putting as much system functionality as possible into daemons that (a) can be spun up quickly when needed in response to Mach IPC messages, (b) can be killed safely at any time to free up memory, including with SIGKILL if necessary, and most importantly (c) operate in the tightest, most locked-down sandbox they could devise.
For background computational tasks like this one, it can also be helpful for getting thread prioritization right. If some computation doesn't need to happen quickly, a daemon can easily make sure that it gets assigned to efficiency-optimized CPU cores, tell the OS scheduler to give priority to more important stuff, reduce precision of timers to coalesce wakeups, and make sure that any thermal throttling affects the background stuff before it slows down anything the user will notice. It's a pretty slick system.
I will, sure, but I've been writing about this for almost a decade; and I know more than most people about this topic, despite being a bluecollar electrician.
Also, my IQ scares even me; I've chosen bluecollar so I don't have to be evil as much with it.
----
Companies do not give two shits about most users, with (e.g:) AMD saying the quiet part out loud, recently, with their recent gamers-last announcement.
Also see: Apple's invasive attempts to categorize all local data, by default; if you want to opt-out (some service, like OP's, you cannot!), it takes dozens of clicks for each new software – intentional dark-patterns to make opting-out cat-and-mouse.
----
>Well, good for you for not caring, I suppose.
I care too much, is the problem (at least from my POV). Companies are soulless, and only care for shareholder value (legal requirement).
Data is the new_oil is the new_steel is the new_tin is the...
> I've been writing about this for almost a decade; and I know more than most people about this topic
> Also, my IQ scares even me
Oh, brother.
I mean this with the best of intentions and care: have you been psychiatrically evaluated lately? The language you’re using is consistent with friends I know who are off their stabilizing medications.
Well, it's pretty obviously slopped together, which I think the commenter makes clear with "it's nonsensical."
The problems are obvious. The OP is not even toning down the 100 window height's worth of battle tabular data, it's pretty clear that OP just pulled the output from a simple claude code output without any taste or editorialization.
So I think it's pretty constructive. This is a cool map, I thought of doing something similar myself (for Alexander's conquest). It just needs to be de-slopped.
Sure, if you can find the opportunity and the means to do it.
My observation about being in Silicon Valley in the 80s/90s was the overall changing environment and ethos of the people there. I am sure there are going to be some massive simplifications here, so bear with me.
One is the overall environment back then. Things weren't cheap, but rent was much more affordable in relation to pay. NeXT paid well, you could rent in decent place in Burlingame, Foster City, Redwood City, etc. The commute down Seaport was fairly quick and traffic was light. Things seemed less crowded and frenetic and that made going into the office less of a chore. The cost of living in Silicon Valley is pretty intense. The tiny townhouse I bought in Cupertino near the current Apple campus was $150,000. It recently sold for 1.2 million. I haven't charted it, but the relation between compensation and housing costs have to be wildly out of proportion to when I bought the place. I was pulling a very good salary at the time and a lot of that money went into savings and investments. Now, I imagine a lot of that income would go into mortgages and expenses. Maybe current residents can comment.
The overall attitude seemed to be more about doing new and interesting things and maybe the money will follow. There wasn't as much of a go to Silicon Valley and get rich doing a startup. Maybe this was just an echo of some Berkeley hippie vibe that was present in a lot of the tech startups back then.
The new and interesting things also seemed more accessible. It seemed like there was less gatekeeping and more ways to get involved with "cool" stuff. Maybe this was also an echo of the Homebrew Computer club and early computer hacker ethos.
I do work person to person in a company, but I feel super lucky to have gotten this role. Really good in-person roles just seem super rare. The ones that I have been exposed to at Amazon, Google, Facebook and other current hiring centers just seem miserable to me. Please correct me if I am wrong and am missing the big picture.
It’s not the working with people that I mind
. It’s the lack of discipline in companies to spec anything out up front so your day is sprinkled with meetings and impromptu discussions absolutely murdering productivity . Then you have to work late just to get your work done. Maybe half days on site make more sense
That would be weird and disheartening BECAUSE I'm not using LLMs to work instead of me and have ideas instead of me and implement them instead of me.
If I was, then 'puffery' seems about right, and my best angle might be to insist that I'm yeast, leavening, and the massive quantities of gas blowing something up into a puffy empty state are only happening because of me. It's even kind of true, LLMs just sit there until directed.
No, the suggestion is that no one will accuse their work of being LLM puffery - which as I'm sure you can appreciate, can happen whether you've used an LLM or not.
Me personally? I'd feel shame for not spending the half hour it would have taken to put even the flimsiest human stamp on the thing I asked an LLM to make for me.
LLM-written code is fine, but the slop docs are worthless. The world is changing. When LLMs went mainstream, managers were encouraging writing docs with those, but the novelty has worn off and people realize the output is bad. AI slop public websites are like docs, people get a whiff and bail out.
Yeah, by pointing out flaws in slopware, one doesn't only show oneself as a boor, but also as a terrorist and foreign agent why tries to bury down the hopes of the humankind, err, it's 0.001% I mean.
Vibe coded doesn’t necessitate bad performance. As I’ve replied to others – during testing I didn’t get any lag across three different devices that I own, so I just didn’t have a chance to catch this before.
That’s not to say “it’s a you problem”, but rather that I currently don’t know under which circumstances the lag appears.
The first release was just Go's parser ripped out and bolted onto a barebones first year of college level compiler, and touted as "safer than Rust", "compiles in milliseconds", etc. but didn't even have real type-checking at the time, nor did it free memory, and many other basic functionality. Furthermore, I vividly remember the author's Patreon advertised at the top of the page back then, and for a while he raked in a couple thousand dollars a month for it.
However, over the years some actually talented people (and nowadays probably LLMs) have somehow sort of fixed most of the biggest warts, but it's still nowhere near what it advertised in that first release.
What's wild is I was looking at the language's home page again, and looking to find their GitHub, the first GitHub link I noticed, is the GitHub sponsors link.
I don't mind supporting a project like this, but this is a bit excessive.
Was it really Go's parser? That wouldn't surprise me, but also that kind of makes sense to me why it looked a bit 'familiar' in terms of syntax.
It's definitely been "alpha" tier for a while, which it doesnt help that the developer doesn't outline any sort of stability that I can recall (back then at least) which imho if you're publishing a language, you should let the reader know.
It appears you're calling something a scam because an early alpha version was early alpha quality. If so, that would be unprofessional and inflammatory.
I'm open to being wrong. So again, can you explain what you mean?
They haven't had a stable 1.0 release yet, but they've had many pre-1.0 releases. It's not some personal experiment that's been sitting in the dev's Github that people are piling onto; the author has gone out of their way to promote it, beg for donations, and lash out at any criticisms.
The issue has never been the quality of the language per se, the issue has been 1) wildly misrepresenting the quality of the language in the present tense; 2) not even having any kind of a realistic roadmap towards achieving the kind of outsized and implausible claims about the quality of the language; and 3) using these outsized, implausible misrepresentations as a way of soliciting hype and funding for the author.
For a long time they did weekly releases, which explains the “hundreds” of releases. It looks like they have made enough progress to move to periodic point releases. (I should probably take another look at it.)
I’m not qualified to judge the language as a whole, at least until I use it for something, but it does have some interesting features. I used to follow their progress, but it’s clear that the pace of development is very slow, like many other niche langs.
Defamation? The author's responses and complete lack of honesty certainly made it look like a scam.
The author listed feature after feature that were unfulfilled. Scam is being fairly kind to the project, I thought the guy was the worst kind of liar. You can check out any of the earlier threads on HN to find out for yourself.
It isn't that it was early, it's that it advertised itself to be what it was not. You defending it isn't doing anybody any favors as this is all public record and you're just standing up for a dev that doesn't deserve it
The scammy part was definitely making all of the claims as if they were already true. A lot of people sincerely believed it. My recollection was that it took months before some of this was fixed to explain that it wasn't available yet, and then more to explain that it hadn't actually been done yet.
There were some really crazy ones, like that it could convert entire codebases from C++ to V and then compile them some multiple of times faster and make them memory safe. How? I'd love to know.
The author to me seems like they are not attempting to scam people, but it's hard to ignore that they were collecting money, from people who thought they had already accomplished these things, because the person collecting it absolutely appeared to be claiming it.
Now doing that once and going "oops, my bad" would be one thing. There would be no controversy. However, over time it has proven to be a bit of a behavior pattern, which is confusing because the author does appear to be producing things that I think are interesting. Just... often buried under some hyperbole.
I have this amazing new thing I'm making, nothing like it, better than everything else. Here's a prototype that does none of that and is _barely_ functional. Care to invest $2000? If so, do I have a bridge to show you...
It was impossible to verify the "earth shattering claims" of the designer/users early on, and they would be very very emotional every time you just question the metrics. At one point there was a chart that was basically "for a given task, every compiler on earth: 1min, us: 0.1sec"
And whenever you poke you found it seemed to be comparing apple and oranges and conversations often ended in v users crying because "this is a new project !"
(yet, the crowd kept growing and they seemed to have produced larger and larger projects with this thing)
i could never find any data on what would allow v to save so much time. i genuinely tried to find objective information, not kneejerk hate. you're the author it seems, so maybe you can give some hints ? i don't believe gcc is the absolute best, but even clang (I didn't check other languages/compilers) was lagging behind in the benchmarks which made me doubt it was not just comparing apple and oranges.
reply