Thread

1. j4cobgarby · 1789828044 · focus · HN ↗

   It _does_ look really cool, genuinely, but calling it a "labour of love" and then having AI write the readme/docs seems conflicting.

   1. in_absentia · 1789828756 · focus · HN ↗

      Long-form comments in the code are AI-written too, so I assume the whole thing is vibecoded. I guess my question is why. This is obviously not a piece of software anyone will ever use. If the author didn't do this for themselves - to learn, to show off their skills - then why bring it to life?

      In business, there's this saying that "when a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric". I guess LLMs also make that true for hobby projects that used to make up a good portion of HN. We'd celebrate a project like that not because it's useful, but because it's a triumph of human ingenuity and a celebration of a personal achievement for the author. But now, it isn't, so is it still something we ought to celebrate?

      1. derac · 1789833523 · focus · HN ↗

         AI assisted or not, you have no idea how much of his personal effort went into the project.

         1. mzi · 1789835019 · focus · HN ↗

            Nothing else than a bit of prompting went in to this.

            1. grugagag · 1789835398 · focus · HN ↗

               How about the desire to steer LLMs to a point of their choosing? LLMs wouldn't do this by themselves...
            2. jameshart · 1789836070 · focus · HN ↗

               If you’re familiar with the way in which documentation artifacts like this fall out of a Claude project, you will recognize that every place where Claude says ‘this changes everything’ or ‘this is the load bearing insight’ most likely resulted from a human looking at what Claude had done, and redirecting it towards a more fruitful line of inquiry. When Claude gets ‘excited’ about a thing like ‘we figured out which clock measurement approach helps us actually optimize performance’ - excited enough to explain it in this level of detail - it usually results from the user pulling Claude out of a rabbit hole where it was going about things the wrong way.
            3. alt227 · 1789838770 · focus · HN ↗

               "A bit of prompting" is subjective, and can indeed take a lot of work to craft accurate prompts which produce genuinely useful output.
            4. kejdjejxjejdj · 1789839248 · focus · HN ↗

               I think you severely lack in domain knowledge if you think “nothing else than a bit of prompting went in to this”.

               1. cindyllm · 1789847493 · focus · HN ↗

                  [dead]

            5. exe34 · 1789849133 · focus · HN ↗

               This sounds like you have only had a superficial contact with LLMs. They do a lot of mechanical work, but "a bit of prompting" is not how they are used for something like this.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.