bbg2401

The writing is dissimilar to the authors prior work, and the website is AI bilge. It’s a safe assumption that it’s AI generated

The trend is people releasing barely conceived software and products written by language models, backed by equally thoughtless marketing materials written by language models.

You're going to have to work remarkably hard to link your comment to the parent without looking like a disingenuous ass.

The stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh? How many people were killed?

I'm certainly observing AI smells from a high proportion of the books I read from O'Reilly and Packt since 2023. Authors don't attempt to hide it and some publish the work as if we didn't have a back catalog to distinguish the genuine article from a lazy prompt-driven manuscript.

I'm not seeing the same from the translated fiction works I've picked up in the same time period, thankfully.

Why would you presume the parent is "just handwaving"? It's odd how people in the .NET community struggle to earnestly engage in conversation with Java folk. The reverse isn't true.

With all due respect aka_67, your reading comprehension is as low as your bigotry is rich.

That you and other readers can't outright identify the comment as parody is actually quite disturbing to me.

Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.

Firstly, your question is not genuine and it's clear by how you've constructed your post. There's no need to put on a facade of curiosity to make a statement. It would somehow be less antagonistic without the question and just the statement.

I feel you could be confusing negativity towards the application of AI with negativity towards the technology itself.

I use AI frequently and am neutral to positive regarding the technology. However, we have seen a rise in "I built a tool" submissions on here which advertise AI envisioned, AI named, AI marketed, AI designed and AI programmed projects. The submissions contain AI generated descriptions. The authors reply with AI generated responses. Often, other authors reply with AI generated comments.

I am entirely comfortable expressing negative sentiment towards the people promoting projects made using AI in the most lazy, passive fashion possible. It's not a moral stance, it's just a matter of quality control.

Further, CEO's and thought leaders with strong pro-AI stances have repeatedly expressed sociopathic or misanthropic views. Again, I'm comfortable holding negative sentiments towards them.

Lastly, your framing is entirely from the point of view of a product person who is desperate to ship something. This is not necessarily the priority of all people present on here. I'm very happy to express negative sentiment towards the SaaS bros who create little value for their users, the tools they use or the wide community in which they participate.

TFA has a few more tidbits than I've seen elsewhere but it's mostly LLM-induced, hype-driven marketing bilge.

A slightly more sober announcement is available at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352627.

Good shout, that's what I use.

My usage of OpenRouter was limited to casual throwaway experiments with coding agents and quick, surface-level exploration of new and unfamiliar models in the chat interface.

My comment is just an expression of a festering grudge over the unannounced, unexplained sanction on my account and the lack of transparency and feedback from the non-existent support team. There's no OpenRouter shaped hole in my personal workflow, fortunately.

I'm banned from using the free options. At some point they flagged my account as having engaged in model training against their ToS. This despite my account using around £15 worth of tokens over several months, nearly entirely through BYOK providers.

The handful of times I did try a free model is when I used their chat interface to quickly compare a few open weight models with a single prompt. That's the only usage I can think which could have triggered the block on my account. Even still, what's the point in have the simultaneous chat feature if using it veers so quickly into a ToS violation.

Their support is beyond useless in helping understand the situation. I don't think I managed to speak to anyone other than Tony Bot (or whatever it was named).

Edit:

Total usage over 1 year:

Claude Sonnet 4.6 $8.80

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview $6.71

Claude Opus 4 $6.19

Claude Opus 4.1 $7.49

Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.06

Claude Sonnet 4.5 $12.74

GPT-5 Codex $2.56

Grok 4 $4.39

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image Preview (Nano Banana) $1.88

GPT-5 $7.30

Others $7.99

OpenAI is as open as Anthropic is anthropic.

I've noticed LLM writing over the past year has had an unusually high tendency to talk about surfaces and, in particular, substrates. I don't expect LLM generated text to be anything other than rich with clichés. I simply wish we would all demonstrate a better editorial hand so we weren't reading the same voice, over and over.

From what I recall, Simon believes non-technical people or developers new to an ecosystem (or lacking a specific toolchain) should be given options to use existing language-specific package repositories and package management tools to reduce friction while engaging in agentic coding.

I can see the rationale but I can't help thinking it's utterly absurd.

Compiler: "Here is an exact program. Translate it while preserving its meaning."

LLM code generation: "Here is an intent/specification. Invent code that hopefully satisfies it."

Does the compiler analogy provide value under those terms? I don't think it does. In fact, I think it provides negative value.

We don't need to use tortured analogies to express excitement over these tools.

Vibe coded product, vibe coded marketing website, AI-generated marketing copy, a testimonial from an AI-generated mascot and seemingly fake identities for the founders. Of course this garners some points on modern day HN.

> SprintiQ started as an AI planning tool for agile teams. Now we run our entire engineering org on AI agents managed by Turbo. Two founders. Zero human devs. Shipping product.

Good luck.

That's nominally true, but a project using shadcn/ui is nearly immediately identifiable as such because most do not deviate from the defaults it (or Tailwind) provides. A UI for toggling border radius and colour palettes isn't going to help this.

The driving purpose of Tailwind is to provide a massive suite of utility classes to atop a consistent set of design tokens and yet the vast majority of projects using it will be plucking patterns wholesale from TailwindCSS Plus, Flowbite, etc.

Even Bootstrap was designed for customisation but still, a large number of teams who deployed it would stick largely with the defaults. It's just how it goes, and it's a perfectly valid complaint from observers.

I have absolutely nothing against Tailwind and shadcn/ui so don't take this as a criticism. This is aimed squarely at the people who point out that these tools are designed for customisation without acknowledging nearly every deployed example pulls from the same limited pool of defaults, UI components and larger templates. And why wouldn't they, tailored design systems take incredible effort and skill to get right.

But as mentioned by another reader, that would almost certainly violate the ToS of the web property subject to the automation. It's almost indistinguishable from session hijacking as far as that property is concerned. And it certainly isn't intended usage.

Indeed, it would likely be classed as a violation according to your own ToS.

It's a delicate matter as we all deploy personal automations that break ToS without us really giving it a second thought. But as a commercial endeavour, it feels brazen, I'm sorry to say.

> Because Kampala is a MITM, it is able to leverage existing session tokens/anti-bot cookies and automate things deterministically in seconds

If a web property has implemented anti-bot mechanisms, what ethical reasons do you have for providing evasion as a service?

The author appears to be under the misaprehnsion that a personal blog with a comment section is impacted by the act.

Curiously, it's the Indians who have taken it upon themselves to master the practice of bonded labour and draw benefit from its ongoing existence.

Pricing per seat makes little sense for a component library. It forces every party involved in building an application to acquire a license, not just a designer who might otherwise have been hired once to provide the assets. Seat-based pricing suits tools people daily drive (Figma, Slack), whereas asset libraries are better priced by what you ship with them.

A more natural unit for pricing would be per domain, application, environment, or similar.

That said, I'm aware several UI frameworks have moved toward seat-based licensing recently, so it must be working for them in some sense.

Take a deep breath and try again. You'll get more of a constructive argument with the person you're responding to were you to engage with intellectual honesty.

An entity must follow the law of each jurisdiction it conducts business. This is not a novel concept. If an entity wishes to process data of citizens of a particular country, then they must follow the laws and regulations of said country, in those instances.

It is a false statement to claim that they are supporting Nazis.

Did you take exception to the company prior to this controversy? After all, they use manufacturing plants in a country which blends far right and far left political ideas concepts quite openly.

I'm referring to the far right ramblings of DHH supporting political figures who are associated solely with violence and intolerance.

I'm referring to the far left activists who have developed a habit of coercing individuals, organizations and communities, sometimes with threats of physical escalation, for perceived connections to other political fringes.

I'm referring to those using language along the lines of "they have hitler particles in them".

I'm referring to tech journalists who do nothing except whine about left wing politics, however benign.

It's mind melting.

---

Edit: To add colour to the final reference, the same journalist who attacked Framework for issuing Pride stickers is now coming to their defence. It's predictable, it's unproductive, and it should be filtered by anyone who values their time.

It’s time we start ignoring the lunacy from the fringes of society. Nothing good comes from indulging the psychopathic lust for control on display from these types of people.

I don't think evocative sub-headlines without providing context can be considered highlighting any particular aspect of the story in a useful or meaningful way.

The international outlets have done far better at communicating this story.