> 'Rogue super intelligence' is the most ridiculous sci-fi nonsense of the AI hype, worse than the pro AI hype.
In my view that line of argument is pro-AI hype. It's the Big Tech CEOs themselves who often share their predictions of the end of the world as we know it caused by AI. It's FUD that makes the technology sound more powerful and important than it is.
Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
> To write tabs, you'll need to be able to make an educated guess at what's being played.
Knowing the theory certainly makes the process faster because you'll recognize patterns, but you can definitely work through most songs without knowing anything about music theory. Just pick up your guitar, slow the track down and try to reproduce the tones.
Back when I first started playing guitar, my teacher had me transcribe the melody to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (from memory). I didn't even know the major scale at that point, but by trial and error I improved my intuition for translating melodies in my head to the fretboard, which is remarkably useful as a guitarist, not only for improvisation, but for composition as well.
That's not to say that knowing music theory isn't helpful in transcribing and in general, but I wouldn't say it's a prerequisite. A lot of my foundation in music theory came from transcribing first and putting things together afterwards.
> I didn't even know the major scale at that point, but by trial and error
That is not productive.
Sure, you can do that once or twice.
But it gets painful quickly.
> but I wouldn't say it's a prerequisite.
I firmly believe it is a prerequisite.
Just by knowing what an interval is and playing that repeatedly, trains your brain to recognize it.
Specifically 1-3-5 interval range.
I'm puzzled by the title of this post. From what I can gather most, if not all, of the performance improvements came from sacking SQLite and Zod.
They applied optimizations that cut CPU time by ~40% to the Bun version before comparing it with Node. Claiming 5x throughput from "replacing Node.js with Bun" is a wild misrepresentation of the findings.
And they include "phase 3 opts" in the phase2 benchmark, so the move to Bun also includes improvements from removing "safeParse". So Node might've been at more than 40% of the performance.
It's sad since these kinds of numbers are interesting, but when there's blatant misrepresentations it just create a stink.
You're right that (some) marketing copy writers have been writing in this style for decades, but suddenly every second tech blogger has assumed the same voice in the past 2 years. Not everyone is as sensitive to it. I read this crap daily so I've developed an awareness and I'm confident in calling it out.
I don't think I've personally seen a single false positive on HN. If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.
> If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.
It's actually insane opening up /r/webdev and similar subreddits and seeing dozens of AI authored posts with 50+ comments and maybe a single person calling it out. Makes me feel crazy. It's not as much of a problem here, but there is absolutely a writing style that suddenly 50% of submissions are using. It's always to promote something and watching people fall for it over and over again is upsetting.
> LLM-generated writing undermines the authenticity of not just one’s writing but of the thinking behind it as well. If the prose is automatically generated, might the ideas be too?
Given your endorsement of using LLMs for generating ideas, isn't this the inverse of your thesis? The quote's issue with LLMs is the ideas that came out of them; the prose is the tell. I don't think they'd be happy with LLM generated ideas even if they were handwritten.
I feel like this post is missing the forest for the trees. Writing is thinking alright, but fueling your writing by brainstorming with an LLM waters down the process.
I take it ideas to mean “well scoped replies” like “list pro and con if this vs that got flow”. While someone might think of N issues the LLM might present another six out of which three or four don’t make sense but one or two do. Might be worth adding these in the document.
I feel like having to signal that you're a human detracts from the content side of things. Proper spelling and grammar, good style etc. are there to help you convey your ideas more accurately. Resorting to a stream of consciousness style of unrefined writing makes it apparent that you're a human, but the downside is that your text is bad.
In my view that line of argument is pro-AI hype. It's the Big Tech CEOs themselves who often share their predictions of the end of the world as we know it caused by AI. It's FUD that makes the technology sound more powerful and important than it is.
reply