I think the point was that it's difficult to notice in the first place, not that it would be hard to find once you know you're looking for something. You don't have a black WiFi router with antennae dangling down from the ceiling.

If you went the other direction and didn't worry about it being noticeable, it would be kind of a fun project to break up a book into a series of QR codes. A scavenger hunt, with each code's text ending with a clue of where to find the next?

You may be overthinking this. "Banned" in this case means that the usual person or people who choose what books to include are being overridden by a party with more clout. From the perspective of a school librarian, for example, book X has been banned. They no longer have the option of including it. (This is even true in the case where the librarian would not have included it anyway, for their own reasons.) They are prevented by the school board, an angry mob of parents, the state legislature, the FBI, or whoever. The fact that the public library down the road carries the book does not change whether that librarian has the option of including it in their school library's collection. They can't. They are banned from including it.

The FBI is not telling school librarians to not stock copies of To Kill a Mockingbird. I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. That can differ across the country, and thats fine. That's what our country is supposed to be like.

But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available, have always been widely available, and will always be, and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.

If it were the FBI, it wouldn't be "To Kill a Mockingbird", it would be "Amateur Forgery, volume XVII: Passports" or something. Well, or something similar that wasn't already illegal.

> I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school.

Then you prefer a low-trust environment. I prefer a high-trust environment. A librarian shouldn't be putting 50 Shades of Grey on a grade school shelf to begin with. If they are, then you should be replacing the librarian, not micromanaging them. Book selection is their job. Let them do their job or don't; don't allow them the authority to only do half their job.

> But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available...and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.

Again, that's a "replace or reprimand the librarian" problem. It's not meant to be a brave act of resistance, it's information to say "these books have been banned, look at them so you can better understand what books people want to ban and why". And obviously, it's more interesting than "these are books where the 3rd letter in the title is T" and so it garners more attention, but it's no more than that. If they're including one that was banned for dumb reasons as in your example, then that makes it a dumb display (and an inappropriate one if the display is also in a library for 7 year olds.)

Obviously, the OP is not the librarian, and is aiming for an act of resistance, so my argument mostly doesn't apply there. Though the part about choices having the potential of being dumb still does. The set of books that have been banned somewhere or other is quite large, it's not like it would have any meaning to have a display of all or even a random selection of them. That's a strawman. You're going to curate based on some metric.

I believe that the party with the most clout is the one that controls the frame. So yes, some parents may keep Slaughterhouse Five out of libraries. Meanwhile those same parents become strawmanned villains in mainstream movies like Footloose. So I don't think pulling a book is that effective when it winds up on a "you can't read this" list.

In general, because it's a flag that says to do things in an incorrect but faster way. It's like -ffast-math. The applications for which it's intended don't do anything where the incorrectness matters. Some random application falsely labeled hl2.exe may or may not.

> What it should do is ensure some things not relevant to Half-Life 2 were not done, thus getting better performance for this game in particular, but there is no guarantee that same optimizations work for other applications or games, so one should not expect an overall improvement.

I can't quite parse this. Yes, there is no guarantee that the optimizations will work for another game, which is precisely why you can expect an improvement with hl2. With non-hl2, you may get an improvement, you may not, and you may get incorrect behavior.

Everything else is not the same, but hl2 doesn't use the stuff that's different.

I largely think that we engineers are to blame for LoC being still perceived as an asset rather than a liability. We are proud of stuff we create, but it turns out that you can't describe how "big" something is without some metric, and so we fall back on the metric that is easiest to compute.

Suggestion: we should all shift our terminology, and in particular make heavy use of phrase "...and it cost N lines of code". And say what we spent those LoC on.

"I implemented new feature X, and it only cost 200 lines!"

"That bug was brutal to figure out, but in the end it only cost 6 lines of code."

"It was doing something in case X that it didn't do in case Y, and it turns out that the distinction wasn't even needed. So I fixed the problem and saved 20 lines of code at the same time!"

Lines of code are a price you pay. We don't go around bragging about how we spent $200 without any mention of what we purchased with that money. Why do we do that with LoC? "I had to pay an extra $200 because I signed up late" and "I only paid $200 for my hand-painted artisanal pottery lamp hanger. Factory-made ones cost upward of $1200 on Amazon!" are two very different statements, and map to exactly the same distinction in code.

"RSS lies. Your process might not be using that memory. The allocator might be hoarding it."

Interesting writeup, but:

No, anonymous AI author. Your process is using that memory, for its allocator. Features like lower-latency allocations don't come for free, even when they turn out severely suboptimal for your particular case. Your code isn't using that memory, but a support library is. It is very much in your process.

Dammit. For a long time, I was blissfully clueless about AI writing style. But I recently read something that screamed en-SLOP, and now I can't unsee it anywhere. It hit me immediately with this article.

I want to go back to being dumb and naive. Give me the blue pill, please!

Wow.

I am pretty insensitive to AI writing. I have never commented before about something sounding like AI, because mostly I don't notice. But this was so over the top that I spent the whole article trying to decide whether it was an intentional parody of AI writing style.

This article's language is not en-US. It's not en-BR. It's en-SLOP.

Yes, that was my clumsy attempt at AI parody. Here's another: this article doesn't just have AI tells. It is AI tells.

Every sentence is saturated with AI style. Perhaps the author so AI-indoctrinated that they can't see this? It doesn't read as even vaguely plausible human writing. Which is mightily ironic given the thesis of "AI generated stuff is just fine, m'kay?" The writing style does more to defeat its conclusion than the analysis itself.

As for the substance of the analysis, it seems pretty good to me but I see some flaws that weaken it a bit.

The presence of "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" proves nothing and deserves no more than a passing mention. A random release introduced way more bugs than the Claude-containing releases. That provides evidence that Claude doesn't introduce more bugs only if your hypothesis is a very naive "AI is the only thing that can ever increase bug introduction rates."

The whole analysis has very limited data. It's necessarily based off a single pair of releases at the very end of the chronological timeline. You would never be able to reject a null hypothesis based only on that, so it's even less sound to present it as proving the null hypothesis. (By the same token, it would be incorrect for critics to claim that it proves their point. Did anyone claim this, though? The heated complaints seemed more based on priors about AI code.)

"The critics' claim is a simple comparison: did the rate go up?" That's reductive. For one, these releases are known to be in reaction to a flood of (AI-discovered!) security reports, which is a novel situation and in fact is a huge confound to anyone arguing about what those two releases mean -- they're both heavily AI-written, but in response to an unusual situation. When the samples are only drawn from a distinct scenario, statistic analysis can only speak to the quality of code in that scenario.

Also, another reasonable hypothesis could be: AI-written code has bugs of a different flavor that bothers users more. It's optimized for passing tests and convincing people and AIs that security holes are closed, which means other considerations like preserving functionality can more easily be regressed as compared to if humans were doing it. (If true, it still doesn't support the claim that depending on AI code is a catastrophe, fwiw.)

I'm not arguing the conclusion is wrong. I'm saying the analysis proves far less than it claims to. As for whether it's a debacle for rsync to become dependent on AI code generation, I think that's a reasonable debate to have but it's not going to be resolved this reductively.

> The presence of "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" proves nothing and deserves no more than a passing mention. A random release introduced way more bugs than the Claude-containing releases. That provides evidence that Claude doesn't introduce more bugs only if your hypothesis is a very naive "AI is the only thing that can ever increase bug introduction rates."

It does not statistically prove anything, but as I thought I made extremely clear in the card where I discuss it, the point of bringing it up is different: to prove the hypocrisy of the anti-AI crowd.

> By the same token, it would be incorrect for critics to claim that it proves their point. Did anyone claim this, though? The heated complaints seemed more based on priors about AI code.

The entire outrage is because people noticed what they thought was an unusual number of bugs and/or regressions in the release, saw it had Claude in it, and assumed a causal link, not just "priors about AI code."

> You would never be able to reject a null hypothesis based only on that, so it's even less sound to present it as proving the null hypothesis.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence, based on these two releases, to think Claude made anything worse, whatsoever, and so the outrage is unfounded. This doesn't require me to prove Claude didn't cause any problems. If I ever made the latter claim, I should clean that up.

> It's optimized for passing tests and convincing people and AIs that security holes are closed, which means other considerations like preserving functionality can more easily be regressed as compared to if humans were doing it.

Tridge actually explicitly says he made that tradeoff on purpose, not the AI.

> Every sentence is saturated with AI style. Perhaps the author so AI-indoctrinated that they can't see this? It doesn't read as even vaguely plausible human writing. Which is mightily ironic given the thesis of "AI generated stuff is just fine, m'kay?" The writing style does more to defeat its conclusion than the analysis itself.

I've since rewritten nearly 100% of the prose in the analysis with my own, more inflammatory and verbose style. I also intentionally left in my natural mispellings and typos, to prove it was me.

My post wasn't written in a way to make friends, but:

> I've since rewritten nearly 100% of the prose in the analysis with my own, more inflammatory and verbose style. I also intentionally left in my natural mispellings and typos, to prove it was me.

Thank you thank you thank you. I would love to be able to describe how hard it was for me to think about the actual evidence you're presenting when reading about it through the AI writing, but I suspect it's one of those things where it bothers you or it doesn't. If you'd like to empathize, maybe I'll give it one try: imagine an otherwise solid PhD thesis written in crayon. The facts and evidence and reasoning are unaffected, but it's just so hard to take it seriously.

Anyway, with the rewrite I don't have to battle my kneejerk reactivity nearly as much.

I'm no expert like she is, but based on what I know, I agree with your wife on the statistics. That style of analysis is going to be the best you can do with the data available. It's an accepted way to stretch data without being too dependent on an assumed distribution. It's a good analysis. I still don't come away with the conclusion that concerns about AI code maintenance are necessarily overblown, but that's fine. I think your analysis project is a very solid contribution, and it's a hell of a lot more evidence-based than the rants people were posting.

Wha? Why didn't they use Q=K=V for that?

The notation is supposed to mean: you have a matrix Q, and also a shared K=V matrix.

I agree with GP that it's super confusing to us the minus sign as a delimiter between formulas. The tuple notation suggested elsewhere would be way clearer.

This was pretty directly addressed in the article: not doing it would only mean they'd fall behind whoever would. This is not peace time in the AI race.

Whether you agree with that argument is another question.

Indeed, I do not buy this argument. Would China's progress be close to where it is today without the US labs' examples? Would any of this be happening if OpenAI had not created ChatGPT?

The decision wasn't specifically to drop a standard bar. It was to drop the existing bars because they have become heavily gamed and are far more reliable indicators of your family's resources than your ability or likelihood of success. That was the equity argument.

Unfortunately, the lost signal wasn't replaced with anything. (I don't know what could replace it. It's an incredibly hard problem. )

Easily gamed? Sure, education is pay to win on some level but we're talking basic prerequisites here. If the objection is that disadvantaged would-be students are being filtered out then start an outreach program to help them prep or something.