For me personally there’s something deeply unsatisfying about hobby projects that are entirely AI generated. Work code is something different. I don’t have passion for a lot of that, it’s just the way I earn money.

This is never going to be a commercially viable project. It’s a wonderful idea for a hobbyist passion project. But if you’re not actually coding it yourself it feels far less interesting. I can’t really marvel at what they’ve created because I know that with a stack of tokens I could do the exact same thing myself.

There's a difference between using AI to automate some drudge work of stuff that would just be mentally tedious to do (writing an operating system for an 8088 in assembly? Tedious, unless you're one of the rare people whose mind does well with that sort of thing), and just not even being bothered to write your own readme files and project description.

At least take the time to hand write a description of what it is and acknowledge the tool assistance as a known fact.

Making fake claims that something is totally hand written is I think what bothers people about this.

There are both pro- and anti-AI factions here... and those with more nuanced views.

Personally, I don't care as long as the end result is good, but a lot of AI software tends to be in the lower end of the quality range.

If you've built a large % of your personality and ego and self-worth around your ability to be a magic wizard with the machine and now it's seemingly easy to automate, how do you think that feels? Of course some people react this way. I encountered personalities of this type who decry IDEs, let alone agentic authoring. I had an asshole team lead at Google who used to smirk at people doing auto-import finding for Java or using e.g. rename refactorings, etc.

I can understand some of the viewpoint around LLMs. But I don't agree with it fully and just find it too useful to be able to get all the things I wanted to do for the last 30+ years done.

And I also think that some of the people who are threatened and angry and who have really deep systems level engineering skills and knowledge actually are in a unique position to benefit most from these tools as they will actually understand and intervene better and produce higher quality. Most of these "really neat vibe coded" projects stall at a certain point where the prompter no longer understands the beast they've created. People with deep knowledge and experience will hit that wall much later.

Anyways, I think we're at a juncture where what is worth caring about and focusing on in computers is going to have to have a radical overhaul. It's tough to separate the gatekeeping/elitism from genuine critique.

Different groups, the spammers like to congratulate each other for how much hard work they must have put into their very impressive prompt engineering. Regardless, AI code is distinct from extremely blatant AI design. People dismiss things that had no actual design, just whatever fell out of the prompt they gave it. If you can't write a single human paragraph or put thought and care into how you are presenting 'your' project, it's not worth paying attention to. Why can't they present their own work honestly? Why would I spend energy looking at an OS made by someone who can't write an HTML file by themself?

This is a psychological phenomenon going on right now in the world around AI: gaslight your competitors into doubt and disbelief, then win.

I presume that there were similar movements during 1950-1980s who tried to gaslight the publics against using computers while using the computers to gain a competitive advantage over them.

I can pour myself a bowl of cheerios. That doesn’t mean I’m easily impressed by someone else preparing a similar bowl of cereal.

Though, I have been finding a lot of utility in programs that support otherwise deprecated hardware, now that is some good slop.

It’s almost like those are two different populations of people?