4 ms·

That README hits all my “this is authored by an LLM” instincts. I presume the codebase is also written by an LLM?

• gruez 2mo ago
  >Contributors >... >claude You don't need to presume. If someone is so lazy that they tell claude to commit their code (ie. they're too lazy to run git commit themselves), the chances they reviewed the code is slim.
  • k8sToGo 2mo ago
    Why do you say lazy? maybe they are ok with people seeing it is claude?
  • danirod 2mo ago
    To be fair, I appreciate when they are so upfront about who wrote the code without requiring further heuristics, so I encourage this behavior.
    • bensyverson 2mo ago
      Yes, I do this all the time, and also check in the co-authored project plans which drove the commits. For a project that is transparently only possible due to agentic coding, I don't see any reason to conceal the methods.
  • simonw 2mo ago
    Honestly, Claude writes better commit messages than most people. Personally I've mostly given in to letting it commit for me now, though I do occasionally take over and hand-write the messages if it's a particularly important concept and Claude's is too verbose. Codex/GPT-x defaults to one-line commit messages, which are too short. Claude likes to write several paragraphs, which is usually too long. If you tell it how to commit properly once per session it will stick with your standards for the rest of that session, and you can put that in AGENTS.md if you can be bothered to.
    • VulgarExigency 2mo ago
      The agents write much better commit messages than me, at least. They also write better PR descriptions. At work we have a PR authoring skill and we’ve included an instruction for it to write a reviewer guide that tells the most logical way to review the code and I’ve found that really helps, so much so that I’m creating a tool to have “literate” PR reviews, where it constructs a narrative interwoven with diffs.
  • Teever 2mo ago
    That’s a needlessly antagonistic and insulting thing to say. This person that you’ve never met and probably never will doesn’t owe any of us anything. They’re out there doing what they want to do how they want to do it and if you don’t like it the correct response isn’t to insult them in front of a bunch of strangers on the internet for clout or whatever. I doubt that you’d ever call them lazy to their face — why do it here?
    • girvo 2mo ago
      > I doubt that you’d ever call them lazy to their face — why do it here? What makes you so sure about that? Posting LLM generated obviously un-reviewed slop and wasting people's time deserves scorn.
  • sargunv 2mo ago
    That's a strange and arbitrary line to draw. There's plenty of times I make edits by hand and then tell an agent to kick it up to a PR, or on the other extreme, let an agent implement something autonomously, and review the diff myself once it's in PR. Both of those scenarios involve the agent running the git commands, neither scenario indicates "the chances they've reviewed the code is slim"
  • freedomben 2mo ago
    I often let Claude write my commit messages even when I'm the one who wrote the code. Claude is often damn good at writing commit messages, and they frequently end up much better than if I wrote it all by hand. I nearly always edit them somewhat, but it's like starting from 80% instead of 0%. Some might call it laziness, but I call it working smarter rather than harder.
    • forty 2mo ago
      A good commit message needs to explain why this change was needed/done rather than what is the content of the commit. Unless Claude also has access to the context via for example the associated issue, it simply cannot write a good commit message since it cannot generally guess why something was done from just the change. This is also the case for humans and the reason why you need to include this in the commit message.
      • freedomben 2mo ago
        I fully agree, but you'd be amazed at how good Claude is at figuring out the why based on the what. I would never have believed it if I hadn't tried it myself. If it doesn't get the why, then I will typically add it
  • trollbridge 2mo ago
    If my harness wrote the code, I have it write the commit. I will hand author something at a higher level that expresses my intent for how I promoted the harness.
• marcobambini 2mo ago
  I wrote tons of software, even a programming language by hand https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity. I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. As developers, we can choose to adapt to new technologies or become extinct.
  • misterderpie 2mo ago
    > I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. The fact that the top comment on this thread calls it out, in a negative way, hints at that you aren't.
    • outworlder 2mo ago
      Non sequitur
    • pja 2mo ago
      > > I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. > > The fact that the top comment on this thread calls it out, in a negative way, hints at that you aren't. It's interesting that what I meant as a purely factual question with no prejudice either way has been taken by almost everyone to be explicitly negative & critical. I need to be a tad less blunt I guess if I don't want to
  • ensjdidk 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • Wowfunhappy 2mo ago
    Please consider writing your Readmes by hand even if the code is computer-generated. I want to read what human authors think about their projects. I virtually never want to read what a computer thought.
    • IshKebab 2mo ago
      Also irrespective of the merits of LLMs, it's simply unpleasant to read LLM generated prose. It can't write well. The annoyance is compounded when you read the same poor writing everywhere. I don't know how people that shovel AI prose don't realise this. Are they not also reading other people's shitty AI text? I did see one sloperator who told his agent to copy his writing style. I have no idea if that works but it's got to be better than yet more "Here's the kicker" LinkedIn drivel.
• cyanydeez 2mo ago
  do people think these projects related to LLMs are ever going to be in anyway a pure human endevour? How bout we make a new rule: only complain about LLM writing when the product as zero relevents to use with LLMs.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• bglazer 2mo ago
  Yeah I'm begging these authors to at least *read* the LLM generated README's. They're so, so incomprehensible because the LLM has a super limited theory of mind for readers. They always assume that external readers have access to the full context and history of decisions in the project development. These decisions and instructions from the user are extremely important for the model and almost completely irrelevant for an outside reader looking at a "finished" product. So, we get sentences like this: "Where the levers were is not where they are. Overlapping the expert reads with the arithmetic was worth ~1.6x and shipped; the two that looked bigger — reading fewer bytes per token, and keeping more of them in RAM — were both measured and both refused, one because this family's router has no tail to demote and one because a cache the machine will not leave resident cannot be bought at any price." What the fuck does that mean? Obviously some internal development decision, using the absolutely inscrutable internal terminology that Claude loves. If people would just read what they publish, I'm sure this would stick out immediately. I'm not an LLM hater, I use them a ton and they work very well for writing complex code, it's undeniable. But they generate absolute dogshit first draft writing.
  • chambored 2mo ago
    If that isn’t the perfect way to frame what I’ve seen and hated about LLM text, I don’t know what is. They certainly write for an audience with a historical context that almost no one has.
  • andai 2mo ago
    >They're so, so incomprehensible because the LLM has a super limited theory of mind for readers. They always assume that external readers have access to the full context and history of decisions in the project development The transformer does not yet understand the non-transformer.[0] This is probably because all the data we trained it on was created by non-transformers, so it thinks it's a non-transformer, but it isn't. I don't think we know how to train a transformer yet. All the training data is linear, but that's not how they think at all. [0] It's a bit like the communication difficulties experienced between autistic people and neurotypicals. Each follow the Golden Rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- and it fails in both directions. A Platinum Rule is necessary: do unto others as their API demands.
• sergiomattei 2mo ago
  Does it matter?
  • jkahrs595 2mo ago
    I need an llm to block these comments.
  • artemonster 2mo ago
    yes. its a quality test. pre LLMs you could easily judge if a project was a labor of love by attention to details, like docs and README. Nowadays if even readme is sloped, what else was slop vibecoded? everything? how much effort was put in there besides 3 prompts? 5? you can never tell
• guybedo 2mo ago
  i thought, here on HN, we were past the "oooh it's written by a LLM it's bad!". I care about the craft, well designed systems, good clean architecture and code, etc... But i also care about reaching goals. Whether i do it working on my own, or with human coworkers or with AI coworkers doesn't matter that much to me. Yes, the result is sometimes the most important thing.
  • crent 2mo ago
    This is my take as well. I think the voice LLMs tend to use in writing sucks but I’m honestly not good enough at English as a discipline to tell you why. That said when it comes to code, did it do the thing and is it causing problems over time? If it did and doesn’t cause more issues than your coworker would, why would someone be so vehemently opposed? Lately I've been landing on a couple of different reasons but I don’t think it’s one size fits all: - Ego/identity - “I am the crafter of code. That is what I do.” If someone has their identity deeply wrapped up in the concept of being a “software engineer” or “programmer” then LLMs are a direct threat to that. People don’t tend to do well with this. Think about dogmatically religious people, pseudoscience followers etc who are confronted with evidence directly contradicting their beliefs. Their entire world view revolves around that identity and if you threaten that, you threaten the foundations of their self-perception. - Career - you can take a lot of what I said above but also map it to threatening someone’s career. What if crafting software by hand becomes a niche, artisanal craft but most software is industrially generated? A lot of people will experience hardship if so and if they can’t find a way to be flexible into the future. - Passion - the ones who love software purely for the craft see this change as robbing them of the one thing they enjoyed in their career. Work is a big part of our life and if you kill the joy for a large group of people, that’s tough to deal with. - Lack of understanding their current purpose in role - I often see software engineers who don’t realize why they were hired. It was never to “write good clean code”, that was a means to an end. The end is generating business value for the company that hired you. That’s really it. It’s banal but it’s just a job like bagging groceries only it has required specialized knowledge so it pays well. Only very niche roles have actually hired for the craftsmanship. If someone is working for Groupon and they believe perfectly elegant systems are the value they provide, they are a bit deluded IMO. They build a platform that peddles coupons. That’s hardly comparable to building software that allows a surgeon to remotely operate a robot that does open heart surgery. Most of us do not work on truly mission critical software like that. Most importantly though, I think this topic needs to be approached with empathy. This is truly a seismic shift in how we, as software developers, work. Change is not easy to cope with especially when it threatens physical safety and identity. Will this change be here to stay and are we in for the extinction of software creation as we have known it? I don’t know. I do know that the world’s financial and governmental systems do seem to be betting on that outcome, however.
• zozbot234 2mo ago
  Yup, I hate to engage in anything that looks like a "shallow dismissal" but the project documentation seems to outright contradict itself wrt. whether it's running the model at genuinely native precision (though the claimed 3-bit quant is potentially interesting) and the headline claim of achieving 2 secs/token in a mere 29GB RAM footprint looks outright nonsensical given what we know about K3 itself (~115GB in dense parameters alone at native precision, plus ~25GB active sparse experts per token and some comparatively minor footprint for the KV cache). This is just not very helpful.
  • verisimi 2mo ago
    [flagged]
• pkulak 2mo ago
  Yes, but very slowly.
• jv-k 2mo ago
  Absolutely. Anyone can remove flag and remove typical LLM slop at least. I wrote a simple tool for it as part of my CI: https://github.com/jv-k/deslopper https://github.com/jv-k/deslopper
• a-dub 2mo ago
  it is definitely the claudiest. it's weird, it's like there's a spot developing in my head next to all the other spots where i park mental models for how people write, but instead of being for a person, it's for the terse-staccato-prosodic-diarrhea that claude generates in readmes by default.
• cdud3 2mo ago
  I prefer to have such detailed readme's created by a LLM while iterating over no iteration documentation at all and usually the later is the standard.