I'm curious what makes that obviously llm? As far as I can tell it was a short and fairly benign statement with little scope to give away llm-ness?
I'm curious what makes that obviously llm? As far as I can tell it was a short and fairly benign statement with little scope to give away llm-ness?
It's just the equivalent of that one student restating what the teacher just said with no added value
Just as bad if it's human. No information has been shared. The writer has turned idle wondering into prose:
> Once threads actually run concurrently, libraries (which?) that never needed locking (contradiction?) could (will they or won't they?) start hitting race conditions in surprising (go on, surprise me) places.
It was an essentially pointless platitude about the GIL from a very new account not really related to the article, and all comments from this account are the same: top level comments with lots of em-dashes that are just a vague piece of pablum somewhat related to the subject. If it was just this comment, sure, it could be possible it's a rather uninteresting human. But given the history, this account is pure AI slop.