Comment by singron
2 days ago
Pangram says the last 2/3rds are AI generated. I suspected when I got to this line:
> The separation of concerns is deliberate — breakpoint() and is_debugger_present() are orthogonal building blocks, and breakpoint_if_debugging() is the convenience composition.
It might be a false positive or just a few spots. Or maybe it's rage bait. I'm sorry if the author actually writes with this style.
It's pretty well established that this blog is LLM generated. The cpp subreddit has recently banned it, for example.
It's amazing and at this point, absolutely no surprise that HN has worse moderation of genAI than the cpp subreddit. The conflict of interest with AI has hit HN like 9/11.
> It's amazing and at this point, absolutely no surprise that HN has worse moderation of genAI than the cpp subreddit.
I don't think this is a fair assessment. Submissions from specific sources are more frequent in niche forums, as this helps them stand out. So once a blog is found to be spamming, it's easier to target the blog and not individual submissions.
This is much harder to do on generalist forums such as HN.
1 reply →
I accepted I was reading LLM output by the time I got to
I am not very experienced with C++, but runtime debug functions are one of the last things where I'd expect compile-time computations. Inlining? Sure. Doing anything else at compile-time? Not really.
The sentence feels like a remark about something a human reader is very unlikely to be thinking about.
The chance that it is AI is much higher than the chance a human would use an em-dash (and not just an easily typeable "-" ) in a PR.
I bet that could be modeled with a markov chain