What percentage of this code was written by LLM/AI?
778 karma · joined October 27, 2014
> In Claude Code, we’ve raised the default effort level to xhigh for all plans.
Try changing your effort level and see what results you get
What exactly did the request for information say from DHS? What exactly was the reason for them to look for you specifically (certainly there are many others protesting)? Following up on that, how do others avoid something like this? What red flags should be avoided and how?
There may or may not be a solid answer for any of this. But this article feels like it's made for awareness, when it could also be made for action, with the right details included.
I copy + pasted the whole article (minus the few included images) and added this prompt in Gemini 3 Pro:
> Take each of the following and add an image representing the act being described. The image should be very basic. Think of signs in buildings - exit signs, bathroom door signs, no smoking signs, etc. That style of simplicity. Just simple, flat, elegant vector graphic lines for the chopsticks, hands, bowls, etc.
Google Gemini output: https://gemini.google.com/share/11df1bc53e3d
I think this is pretty dang good for a one-shot run. I also ran this through Claude Opus 4.6 Extended (doesn't generate images directly, so it made an HTML page and some vector icons). Not as good as Gemini IMO. See here if curious: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/8b6589b3-4da4-4fd5-b862-c...
Anyone able to do this better with a different prompt or model (or both)?
Damn dude didn't you pay like ... over $10k for that patent?
Just my opinion, probably not a popular one. But I will be avoiding an upgrade to Node.js after 24.14 for a while if this is becoming an acceptable precedent.
The author is trying to demonstrate a problem and the proposed solution, using example code that the reader then needs to read, formulate a visual "structure" in their mind, and then apply that structure to the subsequent code.
Typescript is not in any way invalid here, and as a tool when programming something that will run in the real-world, can be invaluable.
However, when writing anything you want someone to deeply comprehend, you want to use the least amount of text needed to get your point across. Adding types don't serve any purpose here. The types used are generics, which tell you nothing specific, hence the name, and the names given to the functions and object properties are enough to convey what this code is doing.
I love my wired headphones though. They support BT but I've used that maybe twice. Ever. Obviously was only because I was using my phone with them, which again don't have a port for the cord.
Would like to see their take on this
Also, the timing of this release, 5.3 and 5.2, relative to the other releases, feels more like a bug fix than something "new"
It really is just a parenting issue at its core.
While AI is not a real human, brain, consciousness, soul ... it has evolved enough to "feel" like it is if you talk to it in certain ways.
I'm not sure how the law is supposed to handle something like this really. If a person is deliberately telling someone things in order to get them to hurt themselves, they're guilty of a crime (I would expect maybe third-degree murder/involuntary manslaughter possibly, depending on the evidence and intent, again, not a lawyer these are just guesses).
But when a system is given specific inputs and isn't trained not to give specific outputs, it's kind of hard to capture every case like this, no matter how many safe-guards and RI training is done, and even harder to punish someone specific for it.
Is it neglect? Or is there malicious intent involved? Google may be on trial for this (unless thrown out or settled), but every provider could potentially be targeted here if there is precedent set.
But if that happens, how are providers supposed to respond? The open models are "out there", a snapshot in time - there's no taking them back (they could be taken offline, but that's like condemning a TV show or a book - still going to be circulated somehow). Non-open models can try to help curb this sort of problem actively in new releases, but nothing is going to be perfect.
I hope something constructive comes from this rather than a simple finger pointing.
Maybe we can get away from natural language processing and go back to more structured inputs. Limit what can be said and how. I dunno, just writing what comes to mind at this point.
Have a good day everyone!
No one cares about ChatGPT so don't bother with that.
OK GO
OpenAI, yet again, launching something so it can pat itself on the back. Just merge with Anthropic and kill ChatGPT.
next year we get the M6 Titanium and then the M7e
Why is this "news" today? Am I missing something?
By next January there will be 30 different methods of age input signalling between OS and application. And then by 2030 we might have the top 3 adopted as established defacto standards.
somewhat related-ish https://xkcd.com/927/ :)
"Operating system provider" is defined, but that's kinda useless unless "operating system" is defined first.
First, how did shadcn/ui become the go-to library for UI components? Claude isn't the only one that defaults to it, so I'm guessing it's the way it's pushed in the wild somehow.
Second, building on this ^, and maybe this isn't quantifiable, but if we tell Claude to use anything except shadcn (or one of the other crazy-high defaults), will Claude's output drop in quality? Or speed, reliability, other metric?
Like, is shadcn/ui used by default because of the breadth of documentation and examples and questions on stack overflow? Or is there just a flood of sites back-linking and referencing "shadcn/ui" to cause this on purpose? Or maybe a mix of both?
Or could it be that there was a time early on when LLMs started refining training sets, and shadcn had such a vast number of references at that point in time, that the weights became too ingrained in the model to even drop anymore?
Honestly I had never used shadcn before Gemini shoved it into a React dashboard I asked for mid-late-2025.
I think I'm rambling now. Hopefully someone out there knows what I'm asking.
Because at this point, it's too broad to be defined in the context of an LLM, so it feels like they removed a blanket statement of "we will not let you do bad things" (or "don't be evil"), which doesn't really translate into anything specific.
That sounds like hell
Where did you get it? Purchased/transferred? Where did they get it? What else did the person with that wallet do?
If the answer is "mined", even then, you have to actually do something with it, right? Buy something? Where is that something shipped? At worst you'll have to pay customs on it, and have it actually get through customs. At best, your address is in a database now.
Have it shipped somewhere obscure? Video cameras are everywhere. Have it shipped to someone else's house and steal it off their porch? Again, cameras everywhere.
Not have a physical item? Just a service? That's pretty much the closest you'll get to anonymous money transfer and full usage (along with whatever VPN you prefer).
Cool that was a fun mental exercise. Now everyone tell me why I'm wrong!
Apparently all the LLMs get their design expertise and color palletes from the same place.
I guess I'll just be in the corner crossing my fingers none of it is found in a hostile foreign land or used against me.