Significant AI smell in this write up. As a result, my current reflex is to immediately stop reading. Not judgement on the actual analysis and human effort which went in. It’s just that the other context is missing.
Believe it or not, when you write a blog post in a different language, it really helps to use an LLM, even just to fix your grammar mistakes etc.
I assume that’s most likely what happened here too.
I have no problem with people using AI, especially to close a language gap.
If you disclose your usage I have a _lot_ more trust that effort has been put into the writing despite the usage
If the author is willing and able to write understandable English, I'd prefer to read their version (even if it's very imperfect) than the LLM-polished version.
Alternatively, I'll happily read an article that was written in the author's native language and then translated directly to English.
This one bothered me because it's pretty clearly neither of those things, and so it reads just like any other LLM-written/LLM-polished piece.
[edit: just realised 'willing and able' might sound snarky in some way! All I meant was to acknowledge that even if you can write in a second (or third, etc.) language, you might not want to]
> The remaining difference is noise, not a fundamental language gap. The real Rust advantage isn't raw speed -- it's pipeline ownership.
I’m scarred to detect these things by my own AI usage.
That said, I think this article demonstrates that focusing on whether or not an article used AI might be focusing on the wrong “problem.” I appreciate being sensitive to the "smell" (the number of low-effort, AI posts flying around these days has made me sensitive too), but personally, I found this article both (1) easy to read and (2) insightful. I think the number of AI-written content lacking (2) is the problem.
I think almost everyone here agrees they don't want to read AI slop, but this submission clearly wasn't that as you admit yourself.