It's poetically beautiful that the tool was very very clearly built mostly if not entirely using AI
The code is interesting though, it's not minified, it's very readable, and nicely indented with lots of comments.
The curated data center list is just some inline JSON.
The javascript uses var instead of let or const, I'm not sure if this is just style choice, or there is some code post processing.
It doesn't use react, AI seems to almost always opt for react for front end design, unless told otherwise.
Like I get it looks a lot like apps built with AI but weren't LLMs trained on real website and a metric ton of website templates?
Is it possible they used a template or other UI library?
It's just vibes. There really are no reliable, simple criteria to determine if something was made with AI, and that shouldn't be surprising, since the whole point of LLMs is to mimic humans' work.
For code, I haven't read as much slop so I'm not as sure but one big tell is an unusual number of basic & unnecessary comments. And if it's version controlled, hilariously long commit messages with multiple sections.
It's more reasonable to suggest that a mismatch in tone or register between the style of writing and the venue it's being published in could be an indicator of AI, and it's possible that people misidentifying these tropes as being AI indicators per se may themselves be suffering from a filter-bubble effect, e.g. someone who doesn't typically read long-form writing might only be encountering conventions of long-form writing in AI-generated content, and misattributing them to AI in itself.
That itself isn't such a great criteria on some sites where you have different userbases who interact with the site in different ways. For example, Reddit has a large "old guard" userbase that treats it like a traditional message board, with longer-form and more in-depth discussion, along with a lot of more recent users who treat it like Twitter, and expect everything to be short and informal. Users in the latter group misidentify posts by those in the former group as AI more and more frequently.
Probably something to do with the way they do RLHF?
Well, that's the assumption I'm challenging. That does not seem to be a substantiated fact at all.
Most of the arguments I've encountered online that attempt to make the case that LLMs do have a writing style that's readily distinguishable from human writing are deeply afflicted with confirmation bias, and are often based on circular reasoning.
My comment above was a rhetorical question intended to point out the fact that LLMs are specifically designed to mimic the patterns of writing found in their training data, so the idea that they'd all converge to some other set of pattern is not by itself plausible.
It's not a assumption or confirmation bias. It's plain as day if you read any of these AI generated (or assisted) articles. You may as well ask me for proof that HN readers are pedantic.
Validating your criteria against the same subjective impressions that informed those criteria in the first place is an exercise in both circular reasoning and confirmation bias.
I wrote a whole post about it. Tldr: "I dont like this shit so it must be AI". BENEATH. EVERY. FUCKING. POST.
https://write.as/shantnu/llm-witch-hunts-are-getting-really-...
The text (especially the "About" section, key concerns, and Erin’s quote) reads like strong AI-generated or heavily AI-edited copy. It has that clean, structured, persuasive style common in tools like Claude, ChatGPT, or Grok. Many observers on Reddit and elsewhere noted it “looks 100% designed by Claude.”
Not this shit again. Someone writes in clean English, people on HN are like iT muST bE Ai caUSe NoONe wouLD wrITe lIKE tHAt
All noise, no signal.
I 100% agree. And I notice you are being downvoted by the LLM Witch Hunt Committee.