In such cases the person says, I have built this building. People who found companies, say they have built companies. It's commonly accepted in our society.
So even if Claude built for it for GP, as long as GP designed it, paid for tools (Claude) to build it, also tested it to make sure that it works, I personally think, he has right to say he has built it.
If you don't like it, you are not required to use it.
But here's the problem. Five years ago, when someone on here said, "I wrote this non-trivial software", the implication was that a highly motivated and competent software engineer put a lot of effort into making sure that the project meets a reasonable standard of quality and will probably put some effort into maintaining the project.
Today, it does not necessarily imply that. We just don't know.
People using LLMs to code these days is similar to how majority people stopped using assembly and moved to C and C++, then to garbage collected languages and dynamically typed languages. People were always looking for ways to make programmers more productive.
Programming is evolving. LLMs are just next generation programming tools. They make programmers more productive and in majority of the cases people and companies are going to use them more and more.
I'm just saying that we don't know how much effort was put into making this and we don't know whether it works.
The existence of a repository containing hundereds of files, thousands of SLOCs and a folder full of tests tells us less today than it used to.
There's one thing in particular that I find quite astonishing sometimes. I don't know about this particular project, but some people use LLMs to generate both the implementation and the test cases.
What does that mean? The test cases are supposed to be the formal specification of our requirements. If we do not specify formally what we expect a tool to do, how do we know whether the tool has done what we expected, including in edge cases?
You never knew. There are plenty of intelligent, well-intentioned software engineers that publish FOSS that is buggy and doesn’t meet some arbitrary quality standards.
That is entirely an assumption on the part of the reader. Nothing about someone saying "I built this complicated thing!" implies competence, or any desire to maintain it beyond building it.
The problem you're facing is survivorship bias. You can think of lots of examples of where that has happened, and very few where it hasn't, because when the author of the project is incompetent or unmotivated the project doesn't last long enough for you to hear about it twice.
I disagree. The fact that someone has written a substantial amount of non-trivial code does imply a higher level of competence and motivation compared to not having done that.
Most of the vibe-code I’ve seen so far appears functional to the point that people will defend it, but if you take a closer look it’s a massively over complicated rat’s nest that would be difficult for a human to extend or maintain. Of course you could just use more AI, but that would only further amplify these problems.
If someone puts weeks and months of their time into building something, then I'm willing to take that as proof of their motivation to create something good.
I'm also willing to take the existence of non-trivial code that someone wrote manually as proof of some level of competence.
The presence of motivation + competence makes it more likely that the result could be something good.
When you order a website on upwork - you didn't build it. You bought it.
But this is also bad, because it's wrong. They drew it and maybe got some paperwork through a planning department. They didn't build it.
Meanwhile this vibe coded nonsense is provided “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. We don’t even know if he read it before committing and pushing.
Quality of the software comes from testing. Humans and LLMs both make mistakes while coding.
There are of course projects that operate at higher development specification standards, often in the military or banking. This should be extended to all vehicles and invasive medical devices.
