Readit NewsLoading parent story...
Loading comment...
though maybe AI is getting to the point it can do stuff like this somewhat decently
> 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.
[1] one of the only AI detectors that actually works, 99.9% accuracy, 0.1% false positive
https://github.com/ironcalc/IronCalc/blob/main/base/src/func...
although at this moment would only pass some "smoke" tests
RowZero is great!
One tricky part is RATE involves zero-finding with an initial guess. The syntax is:
RATE(nper, pmt, pv, [fv], [type], [guess])
Sometimes there are multiple zeros. When doing parity testing with Excel and Google Sheets, I found many cases where Sheets and Excel find different zeros, so their internal solver algorithm must be different in some cases.
My initial solution tended to match Sheets when they differed, so I assume I and the Google engineers both came up with similar simple implementations. Who knows what the Excel algorithm is doing.
Of course, almost all these edge cases are for extremely weird unrealistic inputs.
Kutcher mentions the establishing shots, and I'd forgotten also points out the utility for relatively short stunt sequences.
> Why would you go out and shoot an establishing shot of a house in a television show when you could just create the establishing shot for $100? To go out and shoot it would cost you thousands of dollars.
> Action scenes of me jumping off of this building, you don’t have to have a stunt person go do it, you could just go do it [with 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 I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it.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/...
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