It's incredibly interesting content, but I can't but help but notice the "AI-isms". I noticed it when he said "And that's the first mental shift", so I extracted the transcript and..
> "But print f is not really just a function... It's a formatting engine."
> "A format string is not just a string. It's a program."
> "A good log file is not just data. It's an emergency instrument panel."
> "...how print f has evolved into a diagnostic language and not just a formatting function."
> "...remember that you're not just printing an integer. You're invoking a tiny machine..."
> "print f of user input is not just bad style. It's an engraved invitation to chaos..."
And then there's the "whimsy" that AI liked to throw into this type of content.
> "It's a bit like giving a blindfold machinist a box of random parts and instructions and saying the third item is a carburetor."
> "...at which point it becomes a swamp full of math crocodiles."
> "The number 0.1 looks pretty innocent in decimal like a little cherub sitting on a cloud. But in binary floating point, it is a repeating fraction wearing a fake mustache..."
> "...letting the user hand your tiny formatting machine a bag of burglary tools."
Apologies to the author if this is incorrect, but this very much feels like videotaped AI spam. Even if I really, really do enjoy the subject matter.
I have never seen the true legends of CS waste any time on this idiotic "I'm smart" style. This retarded site, on the other hand, is full of idiots and therefore full of this kind of garbage "printf is turing complete" "I grobfuzzed Rust retromodal fritzomonger into running webassembly backwards on my solar cells".
On top of that, the format is -surprisingly enough- also idiotic and would maybe have a chance of being informative if prepared in this newfangled technology called text, 7-bit ascii style.
Bonus points for sober style instead of yet another "breaking news" video vomit. I won't watch your video, thank you for nothing.
Next up: mine bitcoin inside printf()!! what //they// _don't_ want *you* to know!
If it's interesting then it's not spam. And why should you care if AI was utilized or not if you found it interesting? Dave (from that video) is an experienced engineer after all.
The worst part of GenAI seems not to be AI slop (I can easily close the tab if the content isn't interesting). It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
I'd much rather people gave submissions the benefit of the doubt, or just clicked `Flag` if it is obviously worthless slop.
Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value - noticing that content you're consuming is obviously AI generated results in two things:
1. resentment that your time and attention was wasted by machine generated word-padding, and
2. a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
> Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value
That's a different problem entirely and predates the recent GenAI craze.
> a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
Then it isn't interesting any longer ;)
---
You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
All of these meta-comments about AI are as worthless to the discussions should be classed with the same disrespect as the meta-comments about website stylesheets:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
> You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
As opposed to flooding it with comments about how anti-AI comments are bad?
I'm not flooding HN with such comments though. I replied to one criticism and then experienced a backlash for it.
I get the hate for GenAI is high. Many of you are scared for your jobs and AI has caused a seismic shift in society. But that doesn't justify lashing out at me because I simply said "Dave isn't a n00b" and "if you don't like AI content then flag it".
My comment was reasonable. However accusing a veteran Microsoft engineer for being an "idiot" (as some had in this submission) because his script loosely mimicked some AI-isms, is not reasonable. And it's disappointing that so many people are defending that behavior.
> It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
Then, when finally neither the topic nor the content has anything to do with AI, "It's so nice to read something on HN not mentioning AI" in the comments.
HN has made a clear decision on when AI content is acceptable on the site itself, it'd be nice if there was a clear decision on the linked content as well. Regardless whether it's the policy I'd personally prefer or not, it'd do a lot in regards to avoiding the same discussion appearing everywhere.
It's moreso the "AI-isms" that irk me. It's interesting, but I'm not finishing the video because once I notice it -- I can't help but focus on it. Instead, I tl;dr'd the transcript.
People question my use of AI when I double `-` with an iPhone on the internet constantly.[0] I get it, it's annoying.
However, if our barrier for quality is "at it's core, the content of this is interesting", then the quality of this place will fall off a cliff. This is factoid-level interesting. It's not a hacker writing something profound or presenting a breakthrough in garbled grade 8 English. It's a fun fact being presented in an acceptably, inoffensive, reasonably produced format.. Is that the bar?
Dave (the guy in that video) is an older timer Microsoft engineer. I don't know if he used AI to help compose his script but you can guarantee the subject matter is from his own experience.
I suspect the AI-isms you identified were really just more his own personal presentation style. I've watched a few of his videos over the years and from what I recall, they were similarly written.
It's incredibly interesting content, but I can't but help but notice the "AI-isms". I noticed it when he said "And that's the first mental shift", so I extracted the transcript and..
> "But print f is not really just a function... It's a formatting engine."
> "A format string is not just a string. It's a program."
> "A good log file is not just data. It's an emergency instrument panel."
> "...how print f has evolved into a diagnostic language and not just a formatting function."
> "...remember that you're not just printing an integer. You're invoking a tiny machine..."
> "print f of user input is not just bad style. It's an engraved invitation to chaos..."
And then there's the "whimsy" that AI liked to throw into this type of content.
> "It's a bit like giving a blindfold machinist a box of random parts and instructions and saying the third item is a carburetor."
> "...at which point it becomes a swamp full of math crocodiles."
> "The number 0.1 looks pretty innocent in decimal like a little cherub sitting on a cloud. But in binary floating point, it is a repeating fraction wearing a fake mustache..."
> "...letting the user hand your tiny formatting machine a bag of burglary tools."
Apologies to the author if this is incorrect, but this very much feels like videotaped AI spam. Even if I really, really do enjoy the subject matter.
I have never seen the true legends of CS waste any time on this idiotic "I'm smart" style. This retarded site, on the other hand, is full of idiots and therefore full of this kind of garbage "printf is turing complete" "I grobfuzzed Rust retromodal fritzomonger into running webassembly backwards on my solar cells".
On top of that, the format is -surprisingly enough- also idiotic and would maybe have a chance of being informative if prepared in this newfangled technology called text, 7-bit ascii style.
Bonus points for sober style instead of yet another "breaking news" video vomit. I won't watch your video, thank you for nothing.
Next up: mine bitcoin inside printf()!! what //they// _don't_ want *you* to know!
Dave (the guy in that video) is an older timer Microsoft engineer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Plummer
He definitely isn't an idiot who depends on AI to look smart.
If it's interesting then it's not spam. And why should you care if AI was utilized or not if you found it interesting? Dave (from that video) is an experienced engineer after all.
The worst part of GenAI seems not to be AI slop (I can easily close the tab if the content isn't interesting). It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
I'd much rather people gave submissions the benefit of the doubt, or just clicked `Flag` if it is obviously worthless slop.
> If it's interesting then it's not spam
Disagree.
Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value - noticing that content you're consuming is obviously AI generated results in two things:
1. resentment that your time and attention was wasted by machine generated word-padding, and
2. a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
> Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value
That's a different problem entirely and predates the recent GenAI craze.
> a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
Then it isn't interesting any longer ;)
---
You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
All of these meta-comments about AI are as worthless to the discussions should be classed with the same disrespect as the meta-comments about website stylesheets:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
As opposed to flooding it with comments about how anti-AI comments are bad?
I'm not flooding HN with such comments though. I replied to one criticism and then experienced a backlash for it.
I get the hate for GenAI is high. Many of you are scared for your jobs and AI has caused a seismic shift in society. But that doesn't justify lashing out at me because I simply said "Dave isn't a n00b" and "if you don't like AI content then flag it".
My comment was reasonable. However accusing a veteran Microsoft engineer for being an "idiot" (as some had in this submission) because his script loosely mimicked some AI-isms, is not reasonable. And it's disappointing that so many people are defending that behavior.
> It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
Then, when finally neither the topic nor the content has anything to do with AI, "It's so nice to read something on HN not mentioning AI" in the comments.
HN has made a clear decision on when AI content is acceptable on the site itself, it'd be nice if there was a clear decision on the linked content as well. Regardless whether it's the policy I'd personally prefer or not, it'd do a lot in regards to avoiding the same discussion appearing everywhere.
It's moreso the "AI-isms" that irk me. It's interesting, but I'm not finishing the video because once I notice it -- I can't help but focus on it. Instead, I tl;dr'd the transcript.
People question my use of AI when I double `-` with an iPhone on the internet constantly.[0] I get it, it's annoying.
However, if our barrier for quality is "at it's core, the content of this is interesting", then the quality of this place will fall off a cliff. This is factoid-level interesting. It's not a hacker writing something profound or presenting a breakthrough in garbled grade 8 English. It's a fun fact being presented in an acceptably, inoffensive, reasonably produced format.. Is that the bar?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48151641
Dave (the guy in that video) is an older timer Microsoft engineer. I don't know if he used AI to help compose his script but you can guarantee the subject matter is from his own experience.
I suspect the AI-isms you identified were really just more his own personal presentation style. I've watched a few of his videos over the years and from what I recall, they were similarly written.
[dead]
Insightful video, never thought that such complexity was hiding there. In a hindsight, it makes total sense.
Wait until you hear about Common Lisp’s string formatter.
Want to share some details?
The FORMAT directive is Turing-complete. The full spec is here:
https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/22_c....
printf is also Turing complete.
Thanks for the link, I'll have a read of that later