←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jasonjmcghee ◴[] No.45948044[source]
So despite this...

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM.

Can the author... Convince me otherwise?

> This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a different kind of simplicity: the kind you earn by climbing through complexity and emerging with complete understanding on the other side.

> Welcome to the Zigbook. Your transformation starts now.

...

> You will know where every byte lives in memory, when the compiler executes your code, and what machine instructions your abstractions compile to. No hidden allocations. No mystery overhead. No surprises.

...

> This is not about memorizing syntax. This is about earning mastery.

replies(13): >>45948094 #>>45948100 #>>45948115 #>>45948220 #>>45948287 #>>45948327 #>>45948344 #>>45948548 #>>45948590 #>>45949076 #>>45949124 #>>45950417 #>>45951487 #
gamegoblin ◴[] No.45948220[source]
Pangram[1] flags the introduction as totally AI-written, which I also suspected for the same reasons you did

[1] one of the only AI detectors that actually works, 99.9% accuracy, 0.1% false positive

replies(1): >>45950020 #
ants_everywhere ◴[] No.45950020[source]
Keep in mind that pangram flags many hand-written things as AI.

> I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it. Both came back as ai with 99.9% confidence. Both stories were written in 2013.

> I've been doing some extensive testing in the last 24 hours and I can confidently say that I believe the 1 in 10,000 rate is bullshit. I've been an author for over a decade and have dozens of books at hand that I can throw at this from years prior to AI even existing in anywhere close to its current capacity. Most of the time, that content is detected as AI-created, even when it's not.

> Pangram is saying EVERYTHING I have hand written for school is AI. I've had to rewrite my paper four times already and it still says 99.9% AI even though I didn't even use AI for the research.

> I've written an overview of a project plan based on a brief and, after reading an article on AI detection, I thought it would be interesting to run it through AI detection sites to see where my writing winds up. All of them, with the exception of Pangram, flagged the writing as 100% written by a human. Pangram has "99% confidence" of it being written by AI.

I generally don't give startups my contact info, but if folks don't mind doing so, I recommend running pangram on some of their polished hand written stuff.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teachingresources/comments/1icnren/...

replies(2): >>45950289 #>>45950887 #
1. gamegoblin ◴[] No.45950289{3}[source]
Weird to me that nobody ever posts the actual alleged false positive text in these criticisms

I've yet to see a single real Pangram false positive that was provably published when it says it was, yet plenty such comments claiming they exist