@"Christof Eb." said:
My first impression was positive, because the text has a nice appearance. But then I saw this:
This is the point. LLM slop mimics the surface-level appearance of well-written text (to some degree of success). Any possibly correct information relayed therein is a statistical side-effect.
How exactly did you measure this: "The impact: 3-5x acceleration in development iteration cycles when paired-coding with Claude."
The clanker told him? idk. Extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. Programming does not follow the rules of Esotericism (and vice versa!). In actual studies done on this you just get measurement error. One guy was 20% faster, another guy was 20% slower, etc. Additionally, if the claim was true for some blessed combination of LLM/MCP/workflow/whatever, this would produce evidence thereof in the form of large quantities of published high-quality code. We do not observe this, so empirically it's untrue. What we do observe is guys at Microsoft et al. bragging about how much % of their code is now "written by AI" and the quality of the software immediately cratering to lows never known before. (I would in general recommend doing the opposite of what post-2010 Microsoft/Google/etc are doing, even before this LLM nonsense, their methods clearly did not result in high-quality software)
@"Christof Eb." said:
?????
Stephen, have you ever used _RET_ ?????
Apparently yes! https://github.com/ironsheep/P2-HUB75-LED-Matrix-Driver/blame/ad22fada85ad7d4ffe90f7530ab9294abfda85f3/driver/isp_hub75_rgb3bit.spin2#L903
And this once again illustrates the point that this is a fundamentally bad methodology for producing documentation if horrible errors like this can ever even come into existence.
If you point them out, he can fix the egregious ones, but can you trust anything else after that?
And even if you're 100% sure you got rid of all the errors, you'll have spent longer to get there, still have to deal with the previous errors being "out there" in older copies of the document and still have the odious LLM association. (I am of a mind the people you could get to want to work and play with expensive P2 chips and their quirky one-off architecture have a large overlap with people who don't want anything to do with "AI" - such is my opinion and I happen to often run into people with similar opinions and interests. If I was checking out Parallax products for the first time ~today and saw AI slop quasi-officially endorsed I would turn around and not look back)
@"Christof Eb." said:
Uih, where did you find getmulh? Perhaps I should not have followed Wuerfels game suggestion, I seem to be a little bit high....
I did issue a warning, didn't I? ;3
And I'd like to take the time to once again state that I'm not just trying to stir shit for the sake of it. I want there to be good P2 documentation and I want the community to be healty. Infact, as is well known, I have had my own go at a P2ASM reference. It's not entirely complete, because it turns out it's a hard job and writing instructive text is not my best skill (and I have many other projects on my slate). A large portion of my 5000+ forum posts are spent helping people in the trenches with their code. I want what's good for P2 and the community and this is just not it. When I get mean about this, it's because more polite methods have failed to take effect. If anyone has got any questions or problems in need of settling, my private messages or email are available in the usual places.
Comments
Uih, where did you find getmulh? Perhaps I should not have followed Wuerfels game suggestion, I seem to be a little bit high....
This is the point. LLM slop mimics the surface-level appearance of well-written text (to some degree of success). Any possibly correct information relayed therein is a statistical side-effect.
The clanker told him? idk. Extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. Programming does not follow the rules of Esotericism (and vice versa!). In actual studies done on this you just get measurement error. One guy was 20% faster, another guy was 20% slower, etc. Additionally, if the claim was true for some blessed combination of LLM/MCP/workflow/whatever, this would produce evidence thereof in the form of large quantities of published high-quality code. We do not observe this, so empirically it's untrue. What we do observe is guys at Microsoft et al. bragging about how much % of their code is now "written by AI" and the quality of the software immediately cratering to lows never known before. (I would in general recommend doing the opposite of what post-2010 Microsoft/Google/etc are doing, even before this LLM nonsense, their methods clearly did not result in high-quality software)
Apparently yes! https://github.com/ironsheep/P2-HUB75-LED-Matrix-Driver/blame/ad22fada85ad7d4ffe90f7530ab9294abfda85f3/driver/isp_hub75_rgb3bit.spin2#L903
And this once again illustrates the point that this is a fundamentally bad methodology for producing documentation if horrible errors like this can ever even come into existence.
If you point them out, he can fix the egregious ones, but can you trust anything else after that?
And even if you're 100% sure you got rid of all the errors, you'll have spent longer to get there, still have to deal with the previous errors being "out there" in older copies of the document and still have the odious LLM association. (I am of a mind the people you could get to want to work and play with expensive P2 chips and their quirky one-off architecture have a large overlap with people who don't want anything to do with "AI" - such is my opinion and I happen to often run into people with similar opinions and interests. If I was checking out Parallax products for the first time ~today and saw AI slop quasi-officially endorsed I would turn around and not look back)
I did issue a warning, didn't I? ;3
And I'd like to take the time to once again state that I'm not just trying to stir shit for the sake of it. I want there to be good P2 documentation and I want the community to be healty. Infact, as is well known, I have had my own go at a P2ASM reference. It's not entirely complete, because it turns out it's a hard job and writing instructive text is not my best skill (and I have many other projects on my slate). A large portion of my 5000+ forum posts are spent helping people in the trenches with their code. I want what's good for P2 and the community and this is just not it. When I get mean about this, it's because more polite methods have failed to take effect. If anyone has got any questions or problems in need of settling, my private messages or email are available in the usual places.