Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by robko 719 days ago
I agree. This article is clearly written with a generative language model. A few other telltale signs:

1. Repeating the same thing multiple times with slight variation:

* "allowing developers to fine-tune their applications and unlock the full potential of their underlying hardware, ultimately maximising vLLM performance." (fine-tune, unlock potential, maximize performance are all roughly the same thing)

* "AI and machine learning models" (AI and machine learning models are the same thing in the context of this article)

* "utilise multiple threads or cores" (Why differentiate between threads and cores?)

* "tailored to enhance computational efficiency and overall throughput" (efficiency and throughput are highly related)

* "a series of graphs and data visualisations" (all the data visualizations in this article are graphs)

* "more computational effort and time" (same thing)

* "significantly enhanced the performance and efficiency" (same thing)

* "ensuring efficient processing and superior performance for complex and demanding AI workloads" (same things)

2. Explaining what "rocBLAS" stands for multiple times.

3. Other ChatGPTisms:

* "offering a comprehensive view of [...]"

* "Let’s delve into the notable advancements achieved through [...]"

* "ensures quicker processing times, which is crucial for [...]"

* "effectively mitigated these impacts, maintaining [...]"

* "elucidate the impact of"

* "significantly enhanced"

* "These results underscore the critical role of [...]"

* "Key Aspects", "Key Observations", "Key findings"

So why is this bad? - Because it undermines the trust in the the article. We do not know whether the claims are actually true or whether they were just made up by ChatGPT.

2 comments

What if that person is not native English and wrote something up and then threw it into chatgpt (or a local chatbot running on 1 MI300x :p) just because he felt that his relatively limited vocabulary would not be enough to express everything?

That person (yeah :p), might just be trying to create as much awareness as possible.

You might get annoyed by the usage of LLM's, some might not. I get annoyed by people still trying to undermine the testing done while everything is clearly extremely transparant, even the docker image is shared..

That said, the article is about the results, if you'd like to "delve" a bit deeper into those results, let me know, i'd be happy to go over some of the data visualisations ;-)

If you want to talk about the results then there are quite a few comments (from me!) asking about those ;-)

Snark aside I do want to thank you and others for running these tests. I just wish I could make sense of the results, which seem too good to be true?

Thanks for articulating something I've noticed happening all over the internet and even in YouTube video scripts.

Are claudisms different from gptisms?

Why can't these authors tell ChatGPT to write with a different prose and avoid "delve", "crucial", etc?

Wizardlm writes these same things in all its answers too

> Are claudisms different from gptisms?

Sorry, no idea. I rarely use Claude.

> Why can't these authors tell ChatGPT to write with a different prose and avoid "delve", "crucial", etc?

The authors could do this, but that would contradict the reason for using ChatGPT, which is to do less work.

> Wizardlm writes these same things in all its answers too

WizardLM has inherited that from its instruction tuning dataset, which has been generated with ChatGPT: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=CfXh93NDgH