Comment by bawolff
10 hours ago
This reads like a totally normal article to me. At some point these AI accusations feel like a witch hunt.
10 hours ago
This reads like a totally normal article to me. At some point these AI accusations feel like a witch hunt.
Its seriously such a cheap, easy, and lazy accusation to make by just accusing it of being slop, I actualky hate the slop-accusing more then any slop. Any bot can just randomly say slop and in at least someones eyes a whole writeup will have been discredited thru tho fault of the author.
It needs to stop, if people have a factual or actual valid criticism of the facts or claims then by all means, go to town. But Im done with the slop screamers, its a downvote and scorn all the way down for those
[dead]
I thought it was a really good, clear write-up of a very nice engineering discovery and optimization. If anything, I think an LLM would generate native superscript for the `2^(-r)` expression, so I didn't have an impression of LLM authorship.
Maybe an LLM did the search for what expressions to put in the blocks vs tail of the vectorized collision detection, but that seems like a good place to use an LLM as long as all of the expected bit relations are verified as checked properly.
Hi, author here. FWIW the blog is fully hand-written. I used Claude to help me generate the visuals.
What goes into head vs. tail is actually fully deterministically decided by the solver based on a P(tail) gradient, so expressions that are more effective in filtering out blocks before they can hit the (slower) tail are preferred in the prefix.