That README hits all my “this is authored by an LLM” instincts. I presume the codebase is also written by an LLM?
I wrote tons of software, even a programming language by hand <a href="https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity</a>.<p>I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. As developers, we can choose to adapt to new technologies or become extinct.
Yeah I'm begging these authors to at least *read* the LLM generated README's. They're so, so incomprehensible because the LLM has a super limited theory of mind for readers. They always assume that external readers have access to the full context and history of decisions in the project development. These decisions and instructions from the user are extremely important <i>for the model</i> and almost completely irrelevant for an outside reader looking at a "finished" product. So, we get sentences like this:<p>"Where the levers were is not where they are. Overlapping the expert reads with the arithmetic was worth ~1.6x and shipped; the two that looked bigger — reading fewer bytes per token, and keeping more of them in RAM — were both measured and both refused, one because this family's router has no tail to demote and one because a cache the machine will not leave resident cannot be bought at any price."<p>What the fuck does that mean? Obviously some internal development decision, using the absolutely inscrutable internal terminology that Claude loves. If people would just read what they publish, I'm sure this would stick out immediately.<p>I'm not an LLM hater, I use them a ton and they work very well for writing complex code, it's undeniable. But they generate absolute dogshit first draft writing.
>Contributors<p>>...<p>>claude<p>You don't need to presume. If someone is so lazy that they tell claude to commit their code (ie. they're too lazy to run git commit themselves), the chances they reviewed the code is slim.
To be fair, I appreciate when they are so upfront about who wrote the code without requiring further heuristics, so I encourage this behavior.
Yes, I do this all the time, and also check in the co-authored project plans which drove the commits. For a project that is transparently only possible due to agentic coding, I don't see any reason to conceal the methods.
Honestly, Claude writes better commit messages than most people.<p>Personally I've mostly given in to letting it commit for me now, though I do occasionally take over and hand-write the messages if it's a particularly important concept and Claude's is too verbose.<p>Codex/GPT-x defaults to one-line commit messages, which are too short. Claude likes to write several paragraphs, which is usually too long.<p>If you tell it how to commit properly once per session it will stick with your standards for the rest of that session, and you can put that in AGENTS.md if you can be bothered to.
That’s a needlessly antagonistic and insulting thing to say.<p>This person that you’ve never met and probably never will doesn’t owe any of us anything.<p>They’re out there doing what they want to do how they want to do it and if you don’t like it the correct response isn’t to insult them in front of a bunch of strangers on the internet for clout or whatever.<p>I doubt that you’d ever call them lazy to their face — why do it here?
Why do you say lazy? maybe they are ok with people seeing it is claude?
Does it matter?
do people think these projects related to LLMs are ever going to be in anyway a pure human endevour?<p>How bout we make a new rule: only complain about LLM writing when the product as zero relevents to use with LLMs.