This is pretty sad. Seeing this a couple of years ago would be mind blowing. An impressive technical feat by someone with grit and resilience to painstakingly build this from scratch.
I had the exact same thought. I vibecoded a MOS6502 emulator a few months back in Rust. My Rust skill is weak, and I learned absolutely nothing about the 6502 or CPU design. Had I done it manually, there's also no way to prove I created it without LLM help making the whole exercise less appealing overall.
> there's also no way to prove I created it without LLM help
You don't need to prove it, that was never a requirement. You can simply say it. The only complication is that there's a fair number of people who, for some reason, really want to pass LLM output as their own. They are present on HN too. But here's another ancient trick to overcome that: reputation. Either the reputation you already have, or reputation you build over time. If you have a reputation as an honest person with genuine interest in software, you really don't have to worry, and you will have audience for your work.
LLM output should be credited to whoever prompted it. I don't get this hysteria. Llms are tools like compilers or chain saws. We don't say a cabinet made from milled wood is some how less authentic than a cabinet made with flint tools. We don't deny people who write compiled programs in a high level language without understanding every branch of the AST and every transistor setting authorship of their programs. Just because something is somewhat non deterministic and draws from the wealth of previously curated human knowledge does not make it an independent agent and not a tool. The people who find AI generated work 'sad' are implicitly sad about the democratization of knowledge and the lowering of barriers to entry to producing things. The thing produced is still a human product. Rather than saying it is an ai creation we can say it was author prompted and compiled of the combination of the author's intent and the store of human knowledge and reasoning trained into an LLM. What is there to be sad about a new tool existing to make things?
guiambros · · focus · HN ↗
Today? Meh.
LarsDu88 · · focus · HN ↗
socializer · · focus · HN ↗
You don't need to prove it, that was never a requirement. You can simply say it. The only complication is that there's a fair number of people who, for some reason, really want to pass LLM output as their own. They are present on HN too. But here's another ancient trick to overcome that: reputation. Either the reputation you already have, or reputation you build over time. If you have a reputation as an honest person with genuine interest in software, you really don't have to worry, and you will have audience for your work.
morpheos137 · · focus · HN ↗
UpsideDownRide · · focus · HN ↗
There is something being done in both cases but it aint the thing.
Mind you there is nothing inherently wrong in using LLMs. The issue is when trying to pass it as your own output.
moosedev · · focus · HN ↗
That said, some of the people posting slop projects as their own probably idolize him and would embrace the comparison!