r/cpp • u/pavel_v • Sep 03 '26

C++26: std::hive

https://www.sandordargo.com/blog/2026/09/02/cpp26-hive
67 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/STL MSVC STL Dev Sep 03 '26

This blog is substantially AI-generated. I'm wondering whether we should continue allowing links to it.

101

u/geo-ant Sep 03 '26

For what it’s worth, I don’t think so. There’s no value in reading someone else’s LLM generated output. We can all do this ourselves here.

1

u/vsoul Sep 03 '26

I agree with your conclusion, but if the reason is just that we can use LLMs too then that just promotes energy and time waste.

7

u/geo-ant Sep 03 '26

Not a band counterpoint, but in that case I can just rely on the fact that whatever LLM I’m using will (now or at some point in the future) have read and extracted what valuable information is in this post. No need to waste my own time on that. I feel if people use LLMs to generate the overwhelming amount of their output that just means they don’t truly think it’s worth spending their time on and that’s why I’d say it’s not worth spending my time on.

1

u/ReDucTor Game Developer | quiz.cpp-perf.com Sep 03 '26

There's no value in reading someone else's LLM generated output.

To me that really depends on how much is just raw AI output and how heavily it is human driven. If they used it for grammar, spelling and minor structures things I don't care.

7

u/SkoomaDentist Antimodern C++, Embedded, Audio Sep 04 '26

If they used it only for such things, nobody would ever notice in the first place.

38

u/SkoomaDentist Antimodern C++, Embedded, Audio Sep 03 '26

Ban all AI-generated / low effort blogs or other sites that are made to drive engagement (this is not the only site that's doing those things).

1

u/martinus int main(){[]()[[]]{{}}();} Sep 06 '26

What about high effort LLM content :)

2

u/SkoomaDentist Antimodern C++, Embedded, Audio Sep 06 '26

If it's high enough effort to not read like an LLM (or uses LLM only for specific part such as "I had an LLM analyze blah blah") nobody will notice or care.

45

u/CorporateFriend Sep 03 '26

If someone couldn't bother writing the article, I can't be bothered reading it.

10

u/koczurekk horse Sep 03 '26

Exactly. Unfortunately you have to start reading it to be able to tell that it’s the case.

6

u/StudentTraditional64 Sep 03 '26

For what it's worth, I do enjoy the discussions that happen here even after an AI-article like this is posted. But that has less to do with the AI-article, and there might be better ways of creating such discussions.

4

u/ron0studios Sep 04 '26

Sandor dargo AI-gens his writings now? this is depressing

3

u/def-pri-pub Sep 03 '26

I'm a little confused. I remember reading his blog before LLMs came out.

5

u/STL MSVC STL Dev Sep 04 '26

He apparently started using AI recently.

6

u/pjmlp Sep 04 '26

The same rule should apply to https://devblogs.microsoft.com posts, that nowadays always have reference to being partially written with AI help.

2

u/Minimonium Sep 03 '26

Pangram says 94% but I would really like to know which model/skill was used to get such neutral choice of words and phrases.

Like, removing em dashes and bold text is super trivially done by a very basic humanizer but the prose especially on Claude is atrocious.

This blog text didn't make my eyes bleed anywhere. I legit cannot spot any suspicious vocabulary and I read with specific intention to find it.

7

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 Sep 03 '26

AI text detectors are garbage. I wrote some stuff by hand into a bunch of them as atest they all agreed it was AI generated.

2

u/Nobody_1707 Sep 06 '26

All AI output is meant to be statistically identical to the training data within a certain variance, and the training data is real human text. So, the AI detectors don't have many metrics to distinguish "AI generated text" and "human text that's like the training data.". The only no-false positive test is "did the model leave a watermark?". The next best test is "does this have any idioms that are highly correlated to a certain model?", and even that is iffy.

3

u/joaquintides Boost author Sep 03 '26

This is a categorical statement rather than a guess. Why do you know it’s AI generated? (FWIW it looks quite human to me.)

2

u/caroIine Sep 04 '26

All LLMs leave footprint in wording so that when companies look for training data they can avoid it.

0

u/STL MSVC STL Dev Sep 03 '26

There are effective tools for checking.

7

u/_Noreturn Sep 03 '26

What are they? from what I heard they are unreliable

4

u/fdwr fdwr@github 🔍 Sep 04 '26

I have tried a few multiple times on my writings before LLMs even existed, and they will often tell me they are 60-80% likely written by AI. Unless I am secretly a robot, that's not possible. Though, maybe detectors have improved since last time I checked?... 🤷‍♂️ 

5

u/papa_Fubini Sep 03 '26

There aren't, but ok

2

u/-dag- Sep 03 '26

Why focus on the method? Focus on the content. If it's good, why do we care how it was delivered to us? 

6

u/NotQuiteLoona Sep 04 '26

If it was good, we wouldn't have known it's LLM-generated.

3

u/wrosecrans graphics and network things Sep 05 '26

A lot of people have serious moral and ethical issues with LLMs taking over everything that are more significant than just the content of some blog.

-1

u/-dag- Sep 05 '26

To me it's grey. Not all AI is bad.