3 ms·
How are we supposed to take this stuff seriously if the author (sic) isn't even willing to write the readme? Claude exists! If I want some slop I can push the b
by jeffbee 2mo ago
How are we supposed to take this stuff seriously if the author (sic) isn't even willing to write the readme? Claude exists! If I want some slop I can push the button myself.
- pg83 2mo agoIsn't this a README? https://github.com/pg83/solo/blob/main/README.md https://github.com/pg83/solo/blob/main/README.md
- WD-42 2mo agoParents point is the readme was written by Claude. Signals low effort.
- pg83 2mo agoREADME.md was written by me, and I, of course, used claude/codex for it. In general, I do everything through claude/codex, the reasons are described in https://github.com/pg83/solo/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/pg83/solo/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md . And no, it's not low effort, and no, I don't see the point in wasting time de-claude-ifying the text just to avoid it looking like I didn't spend enough time on it.
- Barbing 2mo agoI believe usually when someone complains about text written by a language model they are hoping to read human-written text instead of human-laundered LLM output.
- WD-42 2mo agoYou make it clear why you write all your code through a llm. But a README is not code. Presumably you would like people to read it. A machine authored readme reflects poorly on a project.
- pg83 2mo agoThe author of the README is me, the machine just wrote it. I am not a native speaker of English, my written English is simply terrible, no one wants to read the text that I wrote exactly :))
- toast0 2mo agoI think we're trying to tell you that we actually would prefer it.
- dummydummy1234 2mo agoFor context, I read Claude output every single day, I know what it is reliable with and what it is not. Or at least I have a feel for how much I can trust it. It may not be clear to a non-english first language person, but when I read Claudes documentation, my brain immediately picks up claude-speak. Therefore, I expect the code to be generally correct, maybe, depending on how specific I was during my prompting. In no way shape or form do I really trust it, at least until i dig into the code and validate my mental model. And query the review for edge cases etc... By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. To a degree this is unfair, as it is like judging the quality of someone's work based on their accent. But Claudes accent, has a high correlation with Claude, so unlike with people, where an accent has no bearing on technical ability, Claude being Claude does. I would much rather read a typo ridden sentence than claudism, even just as a forward, explaining what you did vs the ai, and telling the users how much we should trust it. Also, If you really insist on using AI to write, have another model rewrite docs/comments into regular English (opus 4.6 for example is much better than 4.7, 4.8, or 5. It is open source so you can do whatever you like, but people (especially native English speakers) will discount your work, because Claude, especially opus 5 writes very very badly. The people who say they would rather see a typo infested mess of a readme are serious. Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. Both of those are better indications of proof of effort than a Claude readme.
- pg83 2mo ago
- cryptonector 2mo agoI almost always write my own prose, and when I have an LLM write me prose I edit it to make it my own, in my own style, and pithier than the LLM would make it. I'm not saying everyone must do that. For me it's partly a point of pride, and partly empathy (editing for conciseness is showing empathy for others' time). But I am saying that people should consider doing it.
- jlebar 2mo agoImplicit assumption of gp is that the README is llm authored. (Which, I agree is how it reads to me.)
- pg83 2mo agoTell me, are there any substantive comments on the text, on what has been done, and on the technical implementation, and not on the form?
- analog_daddy 2mo agoDisclaimer: This is a user’s perspective rather than a programmer’s perspective. valid point. I am usually okay with LLM generated code since even if it might not be architecturally sound It is usually well commented and has tests and documentation for helping another agent/human debug any issues. But, just the painful experience of debugging any dlopen related crashes and/or intermittent bugs; and the sheer amount of tokens burnt by an LLM chasing tangents when shown a stack trace; I wouldn’t touch this at least as a packager/consumer of certain apps for personal usage on older distros. So far, AnyLinux-Appimages seem to be a mature solution with great support from the developers, in case anyone lands here for packaging applications to run on older distros.
- pg83 2mo agoModern models, when properly managed with a human in the loop, write higher-quality code than humans and introduce significantly fewer bugs. Therefore, it's quite the opposite - you should expect fewer "dlopen-related crashes and/or intermittent bugs."
- amoss 2mo ago> Modern models, when properly managed with a human in the loop, write higher-quality code than humans and introduce significantly fewer bugs. I don't think anybody believes this, and interjecting it into every thread is not really convincing anyone.
- someothherguyy 2mo agowhere is the study confirming this?
- ChocolateGod 2mo ago> So far, AnyLinux-Appimages seem to be a mature solution with great support from the developers, in case anyone lands here for packaging applications to run on older distros. The Linux ecosystem already settled on containers to solve the problem. Namely Docker, Flatpak, Podman ec.