I love how a comment pointing out glaring lack of human review of this project (with clear evidence) is flagged to death. With zero counter-argument no less. Can’t wait for the bright future of vibed crap with zero human quality control getting hacked every day.

But brother, he is shipping at inference speed!

ASCII with rounded corners is already a red flag, let alone not being able to check if it's aligned. Claude LOVES these.

Something more realistic would be:

+-----+

| foo |

+-----+

> ASCII with rounded corners

To be that guy for a moment: those are not ASCII as those characters are not in the standard 7-bit ASCII set. The closest you get to rounded corners with just ASCII is something like:

    /-----\       .-----. 
    | bah |  or   | bah |   (the latter usually looks best IMO, but that can depend on font)
    \-----/       `-----' 

You'd get away with calling the linked diagram ANSI. While that is technically incorrect most people accept the term for something that uses one of the common 8-bit character sets that include those box-drawing characters (CP437, CP850, ISO-8859, Win1252, …), because that is what MS has for a long time called Win1252 in its tools.

> is already a red flag

I wouldn't call using box-drawing characters a red flag, I've known people use them this way for years and do so myself. The LLM generates them because they were in its training data because people use them. It might be something to consider amongst other flags but I don't consider it a strong signal on its own. The red flag for me is the alignment - if you are going to have your documentation ghostwritten at least make the effort to do a cursory editing pass afterwards.

What a detail oriented contribution. Thanks https://github.com/Nahuel990/ministack/blob/master/CHANGELOG...

Yeah. Could at least run a formatter on it afterwards... You can even configure a hook for Claude to do that.

We live in the golden age of slop. It seems a surprisingly small number of people have the visceral AI disgust response.

Maybe that visceral response being against the rules (assume good faith) and actively being punished explains the small number of people doing it?

My visceral AI disgust response here is just a subset of my more general lazyly-slapped-together-without-sufficient-testing-or-other-review disgust response. If it doesn't look bad in that way, whether hand-made or ghostwritten, then I'll not react to it that way. But if someone can't be bothered to do a simple clean-up pass on that documentation, what mess could they have left in the code too?

As far as I'm concerned the social contract (“the rules”) has already been broken by people taking insufficient care, and my reaction to that is a healthy one from the PoV of self-preservation. Acting in good faith works both ways, or it doesn't.

>Acting in good faith works both ways, or it doesn't.

Well said, polluting hacker news with low effort slop for self promotion cannot be good faith. The rules are enforced on commenters but good faith is not expected for submissions somehow