> Claude ain't “other people” so I don't think this applies.
Claude didn't make the post or come up with the idea or execute it independently, so not sure how that applies.
If you want to comment on the code quality or the engineering itself, that would be a good critical comment that teaches us something.
> By the way, the guidelines proscribe AI-generated comments, so I don't see why AI-generated posts should be treated differently.
That's your opinion and not the guideline, so again not sure how it applies.
You're free to e-mail hn@ycombinator.com and suggest, but I'm sure it crossed their mind when they wrote about AI comments so I don't think it's been decided that AI-aided projects are somehow automatically invalidated.
This is a nice demonstration of how AI enables people to build things that just wouldn't have existed before because the hassle was prohibitive. Negativity is still unwarranted here.
When it was written has no bearing on its validity.
It applies when you're talking about someone else's work. Not every repo is slop. If you want to make a claim that this code is bad, then claim that rather than saying "they used AI therefore it's bad" which is, as the rule says, a shallow dismissal that teaches us nothing.
> especially of other people's work.
Claude ain't “other people” so I don't think this applies.
By the way, the guidelines proscribe AI-generated comments, so I don't see why AI-generated posts should be treated differently.
> Claude ain't “other people” so I don't think this applies.
Claude didn't make the post or come up with the idea or execute it independently, so not sure how that applies.
If you want to comment on the code quality or the engineering itself, that would be a good critical comment that teaches us something.
> By the way, the guidelines proscribe AI-generated comments, so I don't see why AI-generated posts should be treated differently.
That's your opinion and not the guideline, so again not sure how it applies.
You're free to e-mail hn@ycombinator.com and suggest, but I'm sure it crossed their mind when they wrote about AI comments so I don't think it's been decided that AI-aided projects are somehow automatically invalidated.
This is a nice demonstration of how AI enables people to build things that just wouldn't have existed before because the hassle was prohibitive. Negativity is still unwarranted here.
When was this specific guideline written? In 2008? And dies it really apply when we’re talking about slop?
When it was written has no bearing on its validity.
It applies when you're talking about someone else's work. Not every repo is slop. If you want to make a claim that this code is bad, then claim that rather than saying "they used AI therefore it's bad" which is, as the rule says, a shallow dismissal that teaches us nothing.