Hacker News Reader

Comment by efilife | Hacker News Reader

2 questions: how much of this project is AI generated and how much of only the readme is AI generated?

Mostly the repetitive stuff like README generation and pushing code with meaningful commit messages was handled by AI. The actual work and logic were done by me.

What about the commit that added tens of thousands of lines of markdown claiming to be an AI summary?

Or the meaningful commit message of “.”

And the commit editing 1,000s of lines of python code mislabeled as a docs change?

Totally fair question!

Docs / Markdown: AI handled repetitive stuff like READMEs and summaries.

Core logic / Python: fully written by me.

Commit messages: some minimal ones just for quick iterations — the real work is in the code.

AI helped with boilerplate so I could ship faster; all functionality is hand-crafted.

If the AI did the boilerplate that implies it was not fully written by you.

The “meaningful commit messages” — again are a single period as the message for a single commit for the entire python portion of the codebase.

My question was rhetorical. Whether the AI did it or a human did, it burns credibility to refer to things that don’t exist (like “meaningful commit messages”)

Hacker News is a better place when we don’t attack people sharing their work. Your point was made.

Well done to the author for shipping code. I look forward to trying it out.

> for sharing their work

If it was their work your point would hold.

To clarify the AI question once and for all:

What AI did: - Generated README templates (boilerplate markdown) - Suggested commit messages (I didn't always edit them) - Helped with documentation structure

What I wrote: - All Python training logic (train.py, trainer.py, callbacks) - All model architectures (gpt.py, tiny.py, small.py, etc.) - Tokenizer integration - Data pipeline - CLI scaffolding (

Don’t feed the trolls. This was your idea and you made something that works. Who cares if its (partially) done by AI. Whomever is taking offense by people using AI for coding, is just having a hard time adapting to the current state of affairs.

It’s here, it’s happening. Try the project, if you like it thats great, if you don’t then move on.

And if you don’t intent to try it for whatever reason that’s fine as well but don’t be salty to the OP for sharing their passion project.

Thanks for the support! Appreciate you trying it out. Let me know if you hit any issues or have ideas for improvements.

It isn't trolling if there is a genuine concern. It isn't about the fact it is all AI generated, I don't care about that personally. I do however care if someone lies about provenance.

I find that hard to believe. You chose to put emojis into comments returned during script executions? You chose to store python scripts as strings in a TypeScript file rather than as python script files? You're even aware of the fact there are no python files in the project, rather it is strings in typescript files that get interpreted as python files, and you still refer to python files by filename in your comment like you expect it to exist in "your" codebase? You're competent enough to put together a project like this but then choose to use if-else for something solved better with match case? (LLM's do that since it's a recent addition to python and so LLM's avoid using match case, but humans rarely fail to use it)

Your medium article, your *.md and most of your code ALL looks LLM generated, which isn't as much a problem in my books, but lying about it is a huge problem.

Fair points and I get where you’re coming from. I’ve been very open that AI helped with repetitive parts (docs, boilerplate, commit messages). The functional code training logic, model architecture, CLI was written and tested by me. Some design choices (like storing scripts as strings or using if-else) were just pragmatic decisions made while iterating fast, not signs of AI authorship. Either way, the project is open source — you can inspect, critique, or even improve any part of it. I’m happy to take constructive feedback. My goal’s just to make LLM training more accessible.

If you're iterating fast, then working on python files where you get the benefits of linting, syntax highlighting etc. and then reading the files as strings or bundled as required is MUCH faster than blindly mucking around in strings. As a side note, how fast do you type? Some of your multi-hundred line addition commits happen rather rapidly back to back.

The only time it would be faster to iterate with your scripts hard-coded into your TS files would be if an LLM is doing your iterating for you.

Why would anyone invest time and effort in a project where the author lies through their teeth about provenance? Why use your project that contributes, as it appears, nothing a LLM can't just give me? Why use this when I could just use an LLM to get the same directly in python without dicking around with npm?

You were called a troll in another reply but the comment you are replying to feels very AI. —'s and explaining to you what open you can do with open source?

Are you being trolled now?

I miss when trolling just meant rage baiting, but yes almost certainly we're all being deceived by OP, if that carries an ulterior motive or stems from a simple lack of moral values is up for debtate but at this point it isnt worth the sustained energy.

This project being upvoted as much as it is reflects more on the community than it does OP at the end of the day.

You’re absolutely right!

Thanks for the support!

And yeah, the commit history is messy - I was learning and shipping fast. Not perfect, but the tool works and people are using it.

Let me know if you have any questions when you try it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com