One caution regarding the suggestions to publish this anonymously: this Ask HN post has already linked the project to your existing HN account. Your public comment history contains enough self-disclosed geographic, professional, family, purchase and ownership details that identifying you would likely be fairly straightforward for a motivated investigator.
I won't enumerate those details here.
The AI provider may also have account, payment, IP and conversation records connecting the generated code to you. An unrelated GitHub account and disposable email would therefore provide only superficial pseudonymity, not meaningful anonymity.
If attribution would create a material legal risk, I would assume the project is already attributable. A civil plaintiff could potentially seek records through discovery, and law enforcement could use the appropriate legal process. Getting actual legal advice before publishing seems safer than trying to anonymize it after posting this thread.
We’ve had IKEA furniture for over 15 years, sometimes storing it in the attic for a few years after disassembling it, then assembling it again. We’ve also kept the main bodies of our living room furniture while replacing the doors. We sold the old doors on eBay, and other people reused them.
I also inherited some “regular” living room furniture after my mom passed away. It cost about four times as much as IKEA’s higher-end lines. After moving it from my mom’s place to my office, I can already see it falling apart after just three years (total lifetime as my mom only had it for two). The quality is so shite that I honestly wish my mom had bought IKEA.
In the future, I’ll either buy custom pieces from a furniture maker or choose IKEA's higher end lines for longevity and reusability.
That is a perfectly valid opinion and POV to have. While I don't share it personally, I can totally understand why one has it. That does not change, that I personally actually do not care the slightest about the question of who or what wrote a novel.
But that is just me, having studied literatur and fallen into a school of literary studies that held Roland Barthes' claim of the death of the author [1] in high regard.
That might just be a German thing, but in school I hated the question of teachers asking: "What does the author wanted to tell us with this story." Because -> The author never wrote that down. And deriving their intentions from a fictional text felt just like making shit up. You either hit the interpretation of your teacher or received a bad grade.
So when entering university and learning, that to analyse a text, to understand how structures within a text enable us humans to interpret and generate meaning, regardless of what the author originally might have intended, was freedom to me.
To make a long story even longer:
As long as the story is good - I don't give a rat's ass if an LLM wrote this, a monkey on a typewriter or a human being (or a group of authors writing under a pseudonym).
> What does the author wanted to tell us with this story." Because -> The author never wrote that down. And deriving their intentions from a fictional text felt just like making shit up
It’s an exercise in engaging intellectually with the work. It’s not about knowing for a fact what the author wanted to communicate. Art is about engaging with human emotions and thoughts, not about deriving specific facts.
> Art is about engaging with human emotions and thoughts
Exactly. Still, that does actually not contradict what I wrote. You can still do this from a viewpoint of Structuralism, Formalism, Reader Centric Schools of Interpretation and Author Centric Schools of Interpretation.
Non of those are less intellectually" engaging with the work. Differently - and in my personal opinion more or less intellectually rewarding - yes. But not less or more.
It's not just the reader engaging in the work, but the author. If the author can't or is unwilling to put in any actual work, and also lies about it, I've lost all respect and interest in them. Saying you only care about the message and not the messenger is sort of like saying you only care about the words coming out of your friend's mouth but not your friend.
True, but that does not mean that the average teacher won't grade you badly if your interpretation is completely opposed to their and what was discussed during lessons.
There are bad teachers, sure. There are also bad students who think that the issue was that they weren't being taught when it was actually that they weren't trying to learn.
> I hated the question of teachers asking: "What does the author wanted to tell us with this story." Because -> The author never wrote that down. And deriving their intentions from a fictional text felt just like making shit up. You either hit the interpretation of your teacher or received a bad grade.
I think this might be the most pernicious strain of anti-intellectualism online: the idea that there is no subtext, that a text only communicates exactly what it lays out on the surface level. That's not at all what Barthes was saying; you've misunderstood him.
Writing is not a noiseless transmission of thoughts, and thoughts themselves are not totally uninfluenced by the outside world, and people do not always state exactly what they mean in the simplest possible words, and words are understood by the reader in ways that writers did not intend. At every stage, there is the possibility of subtext and context being present.
Your teachers weren't trying to get you to fix on the one perfect interpretation, because that idea (Barthes would agree) doesn't really make sense. Instead, they wanted you to interpret, explain, and justify in a complex and ambiguous space.
> That's not at all what Barthes was saying; you've misunderstood him.
Thanks for misrepresenting me. Or willfully miunderstanding me. But hey. No qualms here.
Just that I never said:
> the idea that there is no subtext, that a text only communicates exactly what it lays out on the surface level.
Not sure though, what made you read that into my writing (and I am aware of the ironiy here). I actually read Barthes. And not only him. I actually used him and his ways of looking, together with thelikes of Genette and others when doing my thesis work (and before).
Because their depth and their way of looking at the depth within text was what fascinated me.
I always compared them to trying to understand the bones, the organs, the muscles and sinues of a text, compared to a surface level way we were taught in school. Combine that with a more culturally anthropologic way of looking at topics in literature and outside of it, more like Focault did (as an example) and my time in university was actually one that I cherrish deeply.
Edit:
> Your teachers weren't trying to get you to fix on the one perfect interpretation, because that idea (Barthes would agree) doesn't really make sense. Instead, they wanted you to interpret, explain, and justify in a complex and ambiguous space.
I have to disagree here. My university teachers mostly did. In school, my experience sadly was quite different. In school there was in most cases and with most teachers only one correct way of interpreting a work of literature. Regardless how well you argued your interpretation.
But I actually love the discussion. Thanks for engaging my opinion.
> I hated the question of teachers asking: What does the author wanted to tell us with this story." Because -> The author never wrote that down. And deriving their intentions from a fictional text felt just like making shit up.
Then why does anyone write anything? Why did Orwell write 1984 instead of just making a 2 page bulleted list about how authoritarian regimes are bad?
Sure, an author can write something that is interpreted totally differently from what they meant, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they did have some intention behind what they wrote and it's worth exploring that.
There are lots of fun ways to experience literature or any art, and you can do multiple! I love reading a book and just considering it from the text alone, and then also considering it from in the context it was written. And then considering my own biases and how they might be similar or different to the author and how that might affect my interpretation.
I could probably enjoy certain LLM-generated art, but in far fewer ways.
Yes. More than one. This one was especially "interesting", a security researcher was tasked by a company to evaluate the ERP (I believe would be the acronym) software. Diiscovered an external database connection, looked at it, discovered this external DB contained sensitive information from other clients of that vendor - reported it, got sued, lost.
Ouch, that's pathetic. Hm, maybe I'll leave it then. Not worth the hassle. Although I don't really think someone would hunt me for random non-prod github repos
That has nothing to do with LLMs or not. If they were to "code" the same tool with an LLM, or build a LLM version of it, in Germany (where rthey are residing) they would face the same consequences.
Our legal system in that regard is total BS, when it comes to the so called "Hacker Paragraph". This comes with a sentence tht can range from a fine to up to one year prison time, just for producing such a tool. So if the police would actually - even if they had not published it - computer... well. They could be potentially "f**ed" (depending on how a judge would decide).
Interesting idea. I got myself an eInk tablet last week and was thinking about how I could incorporate handwritten notes/blog posts into my regular blog. As a separate section and maybe a separate RSS feed.
Because I actually liked the idea of enabling people to read my handwritten notes. I just would not want to put that onto an external service, being more of a selfhost person...
In my daily work, I found expeciall terra and sol now stopping every few rounds again, telling me the tak is done. I even had them create a detailled plan - and told them to finish "end to end" - and they appruptly stop after the plan. Because they interpret this as finished. Even if the DOD is clearly not "finish the plan".
The new models are shite (pardon my French), when it comes to long running tasks and I find myself more and more using open wheights models or switching back to gpt-5.5 for "real work".
This might be the fact, that i use them for non coding work. But the degradation between 5.5 and 5.6 is stark in my daily work.
As always with AI - everybody's mileage will vary.
Same. And I built a search tool for that repository of older sessions, so that I can search through those on all my machines. This helps me to be able to pick something up on a machine I did not originally start the convo on.
I do, quite regularly. Because different models have different strength (for example when producing text for live presentations based on the text for a reading deck). Or when it comes to other aspects of the work. I regularly switch between open wheight models and closed models.
I know, I am a tiny minority here. And this behavior only ever started a few weeks ago. But it quickly became a habbit, to CTRL-L in pi and change the model.
I agree with OPs commment about K3 being pretty good. Claude can be good too, but it didn’t get there until I made a writing rule. It has 4 basic sections:
* a style guide with examples for different tasks (it’s sufficient to name writers with some attributes you like if they are famous)
* mechanical formatting, output and other preferences
* a short list of the things I consider most important in different writing context, this the the squishiest overall
* a (growing) list of banned Claudisms. Nothing is really banned, but it includes things like: you may only ever use “scar tissue” in reference to actual regenerated tissue, never metaphorically
The thing is you have to be discipline with it. Every time they output something you don’t like, you’ve got to spend time verbalizing what about it you don’t like and in what context and then add it to the rules file. The first few docs you generate will take a long time, but each repeated generation gets better and by the 4th are 5 time you do this it’s like 80% of the way to where it needs to be and that generalizes well.
I found Kimi3 (currently only a few tests) to be not to bad. Older Claude versions (did not yet test it with the 4.8-5 generation.
I do not really like (even if it is my daily driver for a lot of things) gpt-5.x for text. It really needs heavy hand holding and beating it into submission to produce readable/human sounding text.
Tbh. I am still looking for my "go to model". But the Chinese models were for my use cases significantly better than openAI models and personally I liked them better than Anthropic ones as well.
I won't enumerate those details here.
The AI provider may also have account, payment, IP and conversation records connecting the generated code to you. An unrelated GitHub account and disposable email would therefore provide only superficial pseudonymity, not meaningful anonymity.
If attribution would create a material legal risk, I would assume the project is already attributable. A civil plaintiff could potentially seek records through discovery, and law enforcement could use the appropriate legal process. Getting actual legal advice before publishing seems safer than trying to anonymize it after posting this thread.