Comment by twoodfin
7 hours ago
I don’t get it. Unlike a lot of the technical article slop that is posted here, this obviously had a lot of human thought and effort put into the prompt.
The LLM pass (unsurprisingly) made it worse.
For example:
The results were conclusive: 100% pass rate, showing Reno recovered cleanly after the loss phase, and revealing that this is a CUBIC-related bug.
Look, I’m reading a description of a Linux kernel network congestion bug. I don’t need the hand-holding.
Yeah, you aren't selling anything. "Reno has a 100% pass rate for recovering cleanly after the loss phase, so the bug is almost certainly related to CUBIC" is a perfectly fine technical text.
Also, the same event both “showing” and “revealing” two different things is just bad writing.