Hacker News Reader

Comment by truncate | Hacker News Reader

I wish README is clear whether they are using AI or not, and if so what the guidelines are. Not that anything wrong with using it, but given anyone with $$$ for tokens can do it, its nice to know what their process is etc etc. Gives me more confidence that its worth checking out.

View on HN

Agreed... the commit log looks very much AI generated to me. And the project was started on May 22 so it's just under two months old.

Not that either of these things is disqualifying but AI really has make it difficult to know how established a project actually is.

If you look at the list of contributors, you see Claude and Copilot, but on the other hand, You can see a huge, functional codebase going back to as far as 2024, so its safe to say its not vibecoded.

https://github.com/DavidObando/gsharp/tree/9579dd6626801f089...

This should be a standard section in READMEs now. I've started adding it to mine. Even if you don't use AI, please add a section saying that! It can be one sentence.

  # Use of AI

  No AI was used. / This is entirely written by Claude and I didn't even read the code. / ...

It’s a pretty safe assumption that most recent projects use AI in some capacity. Models have gotten pretty good

It’s slop

Could you expand on that?

I don't know if they can expand, but I did last time this was posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884619

Reply on news.ycombinator.com