For me it was "head to head" table. Typical complete nonsense llm-generated comparison table. Rest of the content is still quite good tbh, generated or not
Not arguing whether this article is or isn't LLM-generated, but I've seen skewed comparison tables like that in marketing since before LLMs. Pick a bunch of qualities skewed towards the new thing being proposed, highlight all the ways the new thing wins.
> There is no atlas, so a hundred thousand CJK glyphs cost a font's worth of outline data, not an atlas the size of a video. Text can change every frame at no baking cost, which is exactly what you want for live data, user input, and localized content. And it all happens in a single draw with an ordinary fragment shader, no vendor extension required.
Specifically, these sentence structures:
1. ... so <blah> costs <blah>, not <blah>.
2. And <blah>, no <blah>.
3. ... fixed resolution ahead of time, which quietly ...
I won't try to convince anyone with specifics but it was definitely LLM generated. I think by someone who knows what topics they want to cover and did have something they wanted to post about. At a high level it is an infodump with almost no opinion expressed.
I learned a few things from it and have some interest in the topic. So this sort of a weird valley where I'm very annoyed by the writing but also getting something out of it. And it's more than I would have gotten out of promoting an LLM myself.
Which I know, because I have written a blog post about SDFs before, and I tried to author it with an LLM helping and the text just came out awful. I think I rewrote my entire post eventually - I am fairly confident at least that none of the LLM's words remained. I mention it because I've already read the SDF section of this blog largely, when an LLM generated mostly the same text 5 months ago.
There are tells in almost every sentence but some flagrant ones: “where every technique below makes its trade”, “every size you want crisp is another atlas”, “a bitmap has no idea it is being viewed in perspective”, “the fix that carried the industry for a decade”, “it lies about corners”, “built for artwork that moves”, “what separates them is technique, not resolution”, “text is where Slug earned its name”.
These are Claudisms, cloying mannered prose cliches that often anthropomorphize concepts, with an uncanny and annoying smugness.
It seemed to get more LLM-y the further down, the first thing I noticed was when it said "genuinely" in a way that didn't fit the tone. Then it said "genuinely" again. Then I started paying attention and I noticed it was basically filling up every other sentence with bullshit to sound "clever". Stuff like
> reduces antialiased vector paths into unique triangle patches and rasterizes them through a massively parallel pipeline with pixel local storage
this is typical type of LLM sentence that kinda runs under the radar, sounds clever, but if you actually look at it, none of it makes sense
jdanford · · focus · HN ↗
20k · · focus · HN ↗
nurumaik · · focus · HN ↗
JoshTriplett · · focus · HN ↗
poly2it · · focus · HN ↗
I think it's a mix of human and LLM writing.
nuxi · · focus · HN ↗
> Drawing it on a GPU, crisply, at any size, under any 3D transform, while the text changes every frame, is not.
> One small texture, resolution independent within reason, one cheap shader.
English is not my native language, so I may be wrong here.
tokenscoper · · focus · HN ↗
> There is no atlas, so a hundred thousand CJK glyphs cost a font's worth of outline data, not an atlas the size of a video. Text can change every frame at no baking cost, which is exactly what you want for live data, user input, and localized content. And it all happens in a single draw with an ordinary fragment shader, no vendor extension required.
Specifically, these sentence structures:
1. ... so <blah> costs <blah>, not <blah>.
2. And <blah>, no <blah>.
3. ... fixed resolution ahead of time, which quietly ...
mbrumlow · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe what we are seeing is us internet dwellers being exposed to wiring styles of humanity we had not been exposed to ?
furyofantares · · focus · HN ↗
I learned a few things from it and have some interest in the topic. So this sort of a weird valley where I'm very annoyed by the writing but also getting something out of it. And it's more than I would have gotten out of promoting an LLM myself.
Which I know, because I have written a blog post about SDFs before, and I tried to author it with an LLM helping and the text just came out awful. I think I rewrote my entire post eventually - I am fairly confident at least that none of the LLM's words remained. I mention it because I've already read the SDF section of this blog largely, when an LLM generated mostly the same text 5 months ago.
mbrock · · focus · HN ↗
There are tells in almost every sentence but some flagrant ones: “where every technique below makes its trade”, “every size you want crisp is another atlas”, “a bitmap has no idea it is being viewed in perspective”, “the fix that carried the industry for a decade”, “it lies about corners”, “built for artwork that moves”, “what separates them is technique, not resolution”, “text is where Slug earned its name”.
These are Claudisms, cloying mannered prose cliches that often anthropomorphize concepts, with an uncanny and annoying smugness.
kristianp · · focus · HN ↗
> A letter is not a picture, it is a set of outlines: closed loops of straight lines and Bezier curves, filled according to a winding rule.
Also the way the comma is used to add an inscrutable end to the sentence: "filled according to a winding rule."
tripzilch · · focus · HN ↗
> reduces antialiased vector paths into unique triangle patches and rasterizes them through a massively parallel pipeline with pixel local storage
this is typical type of LLM sentence that kinda runs under the radar, sounds clever, but if you actually look at it, none of it makes sense
- what are "antialiased vector paths"?
- why mention "unique" triangle patches? (surely it wouldn't render duplicate ones)
- a "massively parallel pipeline"? like a GPU you mean?
- "pixel local storage" sounds like an obnoxious marketing term if it's not defined in the article (which it isn't)
anyway I quickly skimmed the article after that but it was little substance