Comment by repple
6 hours ago
Significant AI smell in this write up. As a result, my current reflex is to immediately stop reading. Not judgement on the actual analysis and human effort which went in. It’s just that the other context is missing.
6 hours ago
Significant AI smell in this write up. As a result, my current reflex is to immediately stop reading. Not judgement on the actual analysis and human effort which went in. It’s just that the other context is missing.
Fwiw, I thought the article is full of great information and well researched. I think your reflex is holding you back.
Here's what gave it away for me
> The remaining difference is noise, not a fundamental language gap. The real Rust advantage isn't raw speed -- it's pipeline ownership.
There’s an unmistakable rhythm beginning with first paragraph. The trigger was “Same problems, same Apple M4 Pro, real numbers.” in third for me.
I’m scarred to detect these things by my own AI usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
The author is from Turkey (where I’m also originally from).
Believe it or not, when you write a blog post in a different language, it really helps to use an LLM, even just to fix your grammar mistakes etc.
I assume that’s most likely what happened here too.
IMO it would make sense to add a disclaimer then, e.g. “I wrote this myself but had AI edit”
I have no problem with people using AI, especially to close a language gap.
If you disclose your usage I have a _lot_ more trust that effort has been put into the writing despite the usage
I believe it
Honestly I'd rather read imperfect english
I didn't notice any signs of AI writing until seeing this comment and re-reading (though I did notice it on the second pass).
That said, I think this article demonstrates that focusing on whether or not an article used AI might be focusing on the wrong “problem.” I appreciate being sensitive to the "smell" (the number of low-effort, AI posts flying around these days has made me sensitive too), but personally, I found this article both (1) easy to read and (2) insightful. I think the number of AI-written content lacking (2) is the problem.
Your initial focus is to prioritize which content to consume.
So much "is real". It is ok to check your grammar, but this is slopabetes inducing.
I also seem to be developing an immune response to several slopisms. But the actual content is useful for outlining tradeoffs if you’re needing to make your Python code go faster.
If we only applied the same reflex to software, even when 100% human programmed.
“The numbers are real.” But the voice is not.
I got the same sense, but nowadays I can't be sure whether a text is AI or the writer's style has absorbed LLM tropes.
I don't think it should be conflated with auto generated AI slop. I see a lot of snippets which were clearly manually written. I'm assuming the author used AI in a supervised manner, to smooth out the writing process and improve coherency.