Comment by furyofantares
5 days ago
I waited half a day to post this, I think we aren't supposed to question if articles are LLM written - but this one really triggered my LLM-radar, while also being very well received.
I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.)
> I'd love to know how much LLM was used to write this if any, and how much effort went into it as well (if it was LLM-assisted.)
Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays?
I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.
> Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays?
No, typically when I ask questions it's optional.
> I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.
That is why I waited half a day, and until after there were lots of comments praising the article. Still, I'm sorry if it put a damper on it for you.
Also the whole reason I asked about the source is because I think the article has a lot of merit and so I am curious if it's because the author put a lot of work in (LLM-assisted or not.) Usually when I get that feeling it's followed by a realization I'm wasting my time on something the author didn't even read closely.
But I didn't get that this time, and I'd love more examples of LLMs being used (with effort, presumably) to produce something the author could take pride in.
> But I didn't get that this time,
Actually, I take it back. I did think I was wasting my time when I noticed it was written by an LLM. But then I came back to HN an saw only praise and decided to wait a bit to see if people kept finding it useful before commenting.
I was somewhat excited by the prospect of this article being useful, but I've started to come around to my initial impression after another day. I don't really trust it.
The structure reads as LLM written. I don't mind this unless the content is utterly wrong. I was actually learning about cache-friendly data structures and I'm really interested in that cache-friendly Robin Hood hashing but now I worry it's a hallucination.
None of the tricks in this article get verified. Almost all of them are false.
sorry, the False Sharing tick works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547441
None of the tricks in this article get verified. It is totally solemn drivel.
Interesting and surprisingly, there are numerous praising comments here.
FWIW, which may be not much - I had codex cli try to verify the results. On my M2 Macbook Air only the first example (False Sharing) did anything - a 23x speedup compared to the article's 6x speedup. All the others didn't produce any speedup at all.
Of course I didn't verify the results I got either - I'm not about to spend hours trying to figure out if this is just slop. But I think it is.
Could you share the benchmark source code of the first example?
5 replies →