I mean, look at the source. This is from an AI company.

That is _definitely_ copyright infringement.

Yeah, that's why I said clean-ish room. I'm thinking more about open source projects here that you just want available in a new language, without any architectural "cruft" copied from the original (since different language idioms may imply different architectures), than trying to evade copyright on something commercial. Most commercial stuff isn't making its code base public in the first place anyways.

You also really need to review its logic too, because it has a tendency to lack the full context of the code it’s working on, and make very silly logic mistakes.

1000%

People who claim AGI from these chatbots don't doublecheck the work.

I rereleased this as public domain, since it’s all AI generated, so it is public domain:

https://github.com/hperrin/gnata

That fix is just the same code from earlier in that function pasted in again after another asynchronous procedure.

I feel like you’re probably just a worse engineer than you think you are if you needed Claude for this.

There's nothing I love more than unfounded arrogance.

How about you try to make a change to SumatraPDF code base.

Let's see how good of an engineer you are when you actually have to write a line of C++ code in complex codebase as opposed to commenting on a check in with an explanation of the issue and a fix.

Claude fixed this crash in a minute: https://gist.github.com/kjk/d22af052499f70a45708c311eef201ff

Why don't you tell me, smart man, what the fix it and how long it took you to figure out.

If you can do it in less than a day, then we can talk about how better of an engineer you are than me.

I don’t know where you got “likely correct” from. Likely working? Sure. Likely correct? Absolutely not.

LLMs will only ever be as good as an average programmer, and average programmers usually get stuff wrong.

> LLMs will only ever be as good as an average programmer

What do you base this claim on?

> average programmers usually get stuff wrong.

All programmers get stuff wrong.

Don’t forget that by using an AI, they don’t actually own the code. That’s public domain code now, since it can’t be protected by copyright.

The commit log is filled with AI generated commits. I wouldn’t trust that on my server.

I want to know why this [0] needed to be co-authored by Claude. Especially because it seems like the kind of change you'd explicitly want to make without Claude's "help" (presuming that's how that got in there).

[0] https://github.com/smgdkngt/dobase/commit/597684fc67b67f5a2a...

Asking Claude to commit and push triggers the Co-Authored-By thing typically, even if the change was made by hand. It could entirely be possible the author just asked it to generate a commit message for this change (although the style doesn't strike me as very Claude like).

I use Claude to help me code. I'm a solo developer and this is a side project, AI helps me move faster on things I'd otherwise not get to. The code is all reviewed and tested by me before it ships. I understand the skepticism though.

That’s all well and good, but you can’t enforce a license on it. Code written by an AI is in the public domain. So the license you’re using is essentially meaningless, and anyone can do anything they want with the code.

Blocking AI users on github is such a quick way to avoid most slop and get advanced notice when an existing project has started going into tech/cognitive debt.

You'll get a warning banner for those repos if you go to these users and block them:

- github.com/claude

- github.com/cursoragent

- github.com/gemini-code-assist

---

Example of the warning banner and more discussion here: https://mastodon.social/@mcc/116115453811522063

I left my job in 2021 to start a business. I just launched it, but I still don’t have a steady income. I’m living with my wife, and still have enough to get by for a couple more years, but I’m really hoping my business can start making money.