4 ms·

Parents point is the readme was written by Claude. Signals low effort.

by WD-42 2mo ago

pg83 2mo ago
README.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 ago
  I 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      I think we're trying to tell you that we actually would prefer it.
    - dummydummy1234 2mo ago
      For 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
        > Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. That's exactly what I did.
      - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
        > By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass. It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - xena 2mo ago
      I would rather read "terrible" written english from a human than I would read "perfect" written english from Claude.
  - pg83 2mo ago
    In any case, it's open source. If you don't like something, even if the project seems generally useful, go ahead and fix it. The PR came in. I'm an engineer and I can write good code, but that doesn't mean I can write good README.mds!
- cryptonector 2mo ago
  I 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.

Parents point is the readme was written by Claude. Signals low effort.

by WD-42 2mo ago

Parents point is the readme was written by Claude. Signals low effort.

pg83 2mo ago

README.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 ago
I 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 ago
You 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I think we're trying to tell you that we actually would prefer it.
  - dummydummy1234 2mo ago
    For 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
      > Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. That's exactly what I did.
    - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
      > By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass. It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - xena 2mo ago
    I would rather read "terrible" written english from a human than I would read "perfect" written english from Claude.
- pg83 2mo ago
  In any case, it's open source. If you don't like something, even if the project seems generally useful, go ahead and fix it. The PR came in. I'm an engineer and I can write good code, but that doesn't mean I can write good README.mds!
cryptonector 2mo ago
I 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.