[diath]

It's weird that the article does not show any benchmarks but crappy descriptions like "milliseconds to microseconds" and "tens of thousands to single digits". This is the kind of vague performance description LLMs like to give when you ask them about performance differences between solutions and don't explicitly ask for a benchmark suite.

[pllbnk]

I disagree. I think it's a nice discovery many might be unaware of and later spend a lot of time on tracking down the performance issue independently. I also disagree that a rigorous benchmark is needed for every single performance-related blog post because good benchmarks are difficult to write, you have to account for multiple variables. Here, the author just said - "trust me, it's much faster" and I trust them because they explained the reasoning behind the degradation.

[nmeofthestate]

The writing style certainly screams LLM.

[_vertigo]

> No schema changes. No new indexes. No query rewrites. Just telling Dapper the correct parameter type.

[pllbnk]

Are we automatically discarding everything that might or might not have been written or assisted by an LLM? I get it when the articles are the type of meaningless self improvement or similar kind of word soup. However, if hypothetically an author uses LLM assistance to improve their styling to their liking, I see nothing wrong with that as long as the core message stands out.

[rmunn]

I've seen so many LLM-generated articles by this point that obviously had no human editing done beforehand — just prompt and slap it onto the Web — that it makes me wonder every time. If I read this article, will I actually learn only truth? Or are there some key parts of this article that are actually false because the LLM hallucinated them, and the human involved didn't bother to double-check the article before publishing it?

If someone was just using the LLM for style, that's fine. But if they were using it for content, I just can't trust that it's accurate. And the time cost for me to read the article just isn't worth it if there's a chance it's wrong in important ways, so when I see obvious signs of LLM use, I just skip and move on.

Now, if someone acknowledged their LLM use up front and said "only used for style, facts have been verified by a human" or whatever, then I'd have enough confidence in the article to spend the time to read it. But unacknowledged LLM use? Too great a risk of uncorrected hallucinations, in my experience, so I'll skip it.