Comment by love2read
12 hours ago
This article was clearly written by a human (and AI) but still has a few "LLMisms" such as:
- The key insight - [CoreML] doesn't XXX. It YYY.
With that being said, this is a highly informative article that I enjoyed thoroughly! :)
The article links to their own Github repo: https://github.com/maderix/ANE
What’s the intent of pointing out the presumed provenance in writing, now that LLMs are ubiquitous?
Is it like one of those “Morning” nods, where two people cross paths and acknowledge that it is in fact morning? Or is there an unstated preference being communicated?
Is there any real concern behind LLMs writing a piece, or is the concern that the human didn’t actually guide it? In other words, is the spirit of such comments really about LLM writing, or is it about human diligence?
That begs another question: does LLM writing expose anything about the diligence of the human, outside of when it’s plainly incorrect? If an LLM generates a boringly correct report - what does that tell us about the human behind that LLM?
We've got about a year before so many people are interacting with LLMs on a daily basis that its style starts to reverse infect human speech and writing
Great insight – Would you like to try and identify some specific "AI-isms" that you've noticed creeping into your own writing or your colleagues' emails lately?
This said, there were people that talked like this before LLMs, it didn't develop this whole cloth.
The article above doesn't read well, at all.
It's not my subject, but it reads as a list of things. There's little exposition.
1 reply →
Exactly. LLM's are mimics.
People seem to be going around pointing out that people talk like parrots, when in reality it's parrots talk like people.
1 reply →
It's already happened to me. I've started to have dreams where instead of some sort of interpersonal struggle the entire dream is just a chatbot UI viewport and I'm arguing with an LLM streaming the responses in. Which is super trippy when I become aware its a dream. In the old days I'd dream about playing chess against myself and lose which was quite bizzare feeling because my brain was running both players. But thats totally normal compared to having my brain pretend to be an LLM inside a dream.
My honest take? You're probably right
You are absolutely right.
Here is why you are correct:
- I see what you did there.
- You are always right.
Also the Prior Art section, which has telltale repetition of useless verbs like "documenting," "providing insight into," and "confirming" on each line. This was definitely AI-written, at least in part.
Below are the items from that section. How should they be written to not look like an AI?
> hollance/neural-engine — Matthijs Hollemans’ comprehensive community documentation of ANE behavior, performance characteristics, and supported operations. The single best existing resource on ANE.
> mdaiter/ane — Early reverse engineering with working Python and Objective-C samples, documenting the ANECompiler framework and IOKit dispatch.
> eiln/ane — A reverse-engineered Linux driver for ANE (Asahi Linux project), providing insight into the kernel-level interface.
> apple/ml-ane-transformers — Apple’s own reference implementation of transformers optimized for ANE, confirming design patterns like channel-first layout and 1×1 conv preference.