I also love the visualizations but I'm getting heavy LLM vibes from the prose:
> One setting drives this,...
> The cost is now about the rows you actually touch, not rounds times table size.
Etc.
I get the brain scramblies [1] from trying to parse this writing style at work so I hate to see it elsewhere. Apologies if I'm wrong. But if I'm not then OP don't use an LLM to write for you. It's hazardous to your reader's health [2].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipUJq-odt5Q
[2]: https://discourse.haskell.org/t/how-to-keep-enjoying-program...
Great visualization. Side note their new c++ extension api is also gonna be faster from the perspective of development / distribution of those extensions
...because Atlas and Fable took turns to go back and forth through it (source code and runtime) and track suspected bottlenecks.
Ask a llm to rewrite it in your preffered style.
This all feels like mass hysteria.
Imagine invalidating facts just because the doc "maybe" was written by an AI. I agree with the hysteria. The good news is this hysteria will be over in the next years nobody will care.
Where were the facts invalidated? Why can't a reader despise a writing style that LLMs converge towards?
I think you're right on your last point, btw, nobody will care and we'll be the poorer for it. Just like how McDonald's and Walmart have driven out and undercut localized taste and culture in the US, so it shall be with writing of all kinds. It's happening right now and readers are getting used to reading the intellectual equivalent of a Big Mac.
It's not even a matter of despising or liking the style, it's a matter of actually being able to interpret it and makes sense of it in a useful way. Even Claude sometimes gets confused by the dense metaphor-heavy obtuse Claude style.
Why point it out if it doesn't matter then?
At what point did I "invalidate facts"?