Even the URL captures the ubiquitous "honestly / genuinely / let me be up front" verbal tick that Claude can't resist. That is, "Rashid" likely couldn't even be bothered to come up with his own website name. I hate it.
Oh please, come on now. Grammar correction (which gets applied to text that you wrote) isn't comparable to LLM text generation. A tool assists a user in a task. LLMs don't assist you in writing: they do it all on their own. There's obviously a continuum here (at what point does a tool become so helpful that it ceases being a tool?), but I think I echo the general consensus.
> in it's current state, it discloses itself to anyone paying attention.
Well, unfortunately, I've still sunk a good bit of time into reading texts that I only realize to be AI-authored part way through. Plus, it's constantly being made harder to discern human-authorship.
Hyper-ultra-processed, yes. But, as others point out in these comments, a food's degree of processing doesn't determine its health value, although those two things are correlated.
Personally, my instincts would favor Huel over fast food, too. I'd be very interested in any study that tested this rigorously. Huel is far from anything "raw," but so long as all the nutritional components are still in there, one has to wonder if it's just as healthy.
This is kind of the point. We simply don't have a sufficiently good understanding of food and nutrition to be able to say "smoosh these nutrients ands other food derivatives together and you get a healthy food".
UPFs is exactly the smooshing, and is generally done to maintain palatability whilst saving money, not even in an attempt to make a healthy food. Sure, Huel has a different goal, but I'm not sure the end result is any different. Just because it's not hyper palatable, it doesn't mean it's healthy.
I just don't advocate, at least not without prompting; it's too maddening. That I'm vegan often becomes known naturally, and once it's established, people in the know tend to start bringing it up on their own. I hardly ever go into advocacy unprompted. I think this is more effective. Just by being present, you might spark the thoughts that lead someone to changing their mind... :)
Yeah, I have noticed this too. and I’m much the same now, over time my “advocacy” is mostly stating my reasons when asked. And sometimes bringing it up in online spaces.
it can be difficult, at least for me, to politely model in the face of what I see as a great injustice. But as you say, it can be maddening to do otherwise and still see no change.
So I do understand and support those who participate in a less passive advocacy as that can be effective for a different group. And keeps “our” voice in the mainstream, even if it is often vilified by popular culture.
Not to brag, but I caught it on the first sentence.
> ExactTeX is LaTeX with gradual annotation: you name the object you want checked, and what you do not name stays ordinary LaTeX, transported byte for byte.
This "byte for byte" phrase was the giveaway. You'll find it everywhere. I really detest these slop projects.
Good lord, why is everything glowing? Why is the header font so goofy? Why is there a big unnecessary "LIVE" label? That last one is such a bad Claude-ism, it evidently can't help itself even when the info being presented has zero reason to NOT be live.
I haven't tried this new app, but Windows Task Manager has always had the ability to pause. Hold down Ctrl and it'll pause updates. You can also set the update frequency to Paused.
Really? The website, you mean? :( I thought to myself, "what a cute, well designed webpage!" when I saw it. Maybe with time this site will stand out like those Claudeslop ones.
> I would not consider myself a "vibecoder", or jaithon as "ai slop"
> Additionally, around 80% of the raw code in this repository was produced with agentic coding tools
Not to be a party pooper, but even if the author wouldn't themselves describe it as "slop," the term still applies. It isn't really a "collaboration" if the vast majority of the implementation was carried out by one (non-human) party.
AI Slop is more of a convention than an actual definition. There is no standard definition (from what I know) that is widly accepted for the definition of AI slop: some people might say any use of AI is slop or others might have a more liberal opinion (like me) where if AI is properly used and generates good results, it is not considered slop.
In my personal opinion (you are 100% free to disagree as this is just an opinion and not fact) the 'hard' part of programing is coming up with the proper architecture, and ensuring the codebase is maintainable and is able to be built on top of. Additionally, the word slop in my opinion signals that the product is terrible. In my opinion, the product of Jaithon is not terrible (like some AI generated code is) and as I have not only been highly transparent with the use of AI and also used it with an appropriate maner with limits, by my definitions of it, this is not considered slop.
Additionally, the vast majority of the CODE was carried out by AI, not the implementation. Architecture & language automota were actually created in 2022-2023 while I was in 8th grade. AI was only used rather recently to speedrun development.
Hope this serves as further clarification by what my readme and my words ment.
Individual authorship doesn't matter anymore, what matters is whether the user has control enough over the process to shape the output, and with recent AI agentic harnesses they do.
> It isn't really a "collaboration" if the vast majority of the implementation was carried out by one (non-human) party.
So then there is a ratio at which you would say it's a collaboration? What if I write the function signatures and allow the AI to fill in the implementations? What if I write half the implementation and the AI fills in the other half? What if I write comments and the AI fills in an implementation of the thing and then I review it and fix it manually, is that vibecoding or slopcoding? Are vibecoding and slopcoding the same?
Moreover: does any of that even matter if the end result is functionally the same either way?
I'm just trying to understand the acceptable way to use these tools because the opinions people have range from "not at all, never" to "all the time, always".
imo you should use these tools to the extent that you still understand the code. i put this on my readme, but how I use these tools is I first draft the code for wtv Im doing manually (like a bug fix, new fewture etc) with a ton of comments so the LLM can understand what I ment to do, and then I just let it finish up the code with implementation, integration with rest of codebase, optimization if the code I wrote was terribly written and like also just to tell me if the bug fix is wrong etc.
i think this is an appropriate use of AI but would love to hear other opinions
Additionally (i have no idea if this is intentional or not), the order of my words in the readme seems to be flipped here.
This line
> Additionally, around 80% of the raw code in this repository was produced with agentic coding tools
came prior to this line
> I would not consider myself a "vibecoder", or jaithon as "ai slop"
Phrasing it the other way like you just did makes it seem like I contradicted my self heavily, however in reality I had the second line with a bunch of reasoning in the readme.
Although it seems to have been a flop in practice, I do appreciate the spirit of making good use of tax dollars. I only wish the program was more carefully guided, since the motive behind it did seem genuine.
If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.
That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?)
(I don't think the GAO could set an expiry date on itself even if they wanted to, they exist by power of Congress, so only Congress could put an expiry date on them.)
> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself.
While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.
It doesn't matter to keep something if you know for a fact it will go bad from the simple act of it staying around for too long, and/or having an incentive to keep itself relevant, by complicating/fueling the problem it was made to solve.
You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
> You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
I always crave milk. That is why I always have milk on hand and if I for some reason need more milk one day I get more milk than usual, but I will still always have at least a little bit of milk on hand.
DOGE was putting the fox in charge of hen welfare. The “spirit” was just a bare minimum facade so they could redirect funds towards billionaires bank accounts.
Sure there were some people involved in DOGE that had good motives, but overall they assumed that history began yesterday and that they were the only people that had thought about reducing the size of government. This was a recipe for disaster.
Even the URL captures the ubiquitous "honestly / genuinely / let me be up front" verbal tick that Claude can't resist. That is, "Rashid" likely couldn't even be bothered to come up with his own website name. I hate it.
reply