zlacker

>>jimmin+(OP)
I think these days if I’m going to be actively promoting code I’ve created (with Claude, no shade for that), I’ll make sure to write the documentation, or at the very least the readme, by hand. The smell of LLM from the docs of any project puts me off even when I like the idea of the project itself, as in this case. It’s hard to describe why - maybe it feels like if you care enough to promote it, you should care to try and actually communicate, person to person, to the human being promoted at. Dunno, just my 2c and maybe just my own preference. I’d rather read a typo-ridden five line readme explaining the problem the code is there to solve for you and me,the humans, not dozens of lines of perfectly penned marketing with just the right number of emoji. We all know how easy it is to write code these days. Maybe use some of that extra time to communicate with the humans. I dunno.

Edit: I see you, making edits to the readme to make it sound more human-written since I commented ;) https://github.com/gavrielc/nanoclaw/commit/40d41542d2f335a0...

>>hebeje+L4
OP here. Appreciate your perspective but I don't really accept the framing, which feels like it's implying that I've been caught out for writing and coding with AI.

I don't make any attempt to hide it. Nearly every commit message says "Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5". You correctly pointed out that there were some AI smells in the writing, so I removed them, just like I correct typos, and the writing is now better.

I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me. I'm sharing it because I think it can be useful to other people. Not as production code but as a reference or starting point they can use to build (collaboratively with claude code) functional custom software for themselves.

I spent a weekend giving instructions to coding agents to build this. I put time and effort into the architecture, especially in relation to security. I chose to post while it's still rough because I need to close out my work on it for now - can't keep going down this rabbit hole the whole week :) I hope it will be useful to others.

BTW, I know the readme irked you but if you read it I promise it will make a lot more sense where this project is coming from ;)

>>jimmin+Ca
”I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me.” - AI software engineering in a nutshell. Leaving the human artisan era of code behind. Function over form. Substance over style. Getting stuff done.

>>nialse+cK
There should never have been an "artisan era". We use computers to solve problems. You should have always getting stuff done instead of bikeshedding over nitty-gritty details, like when in the office people have been spending weeks on optimizing code... just to have the exact same output, exact same time, but now "nicer".

You get paid to get stuff done, period.

>>_zolta+fQ
> There should never have been an "artisan era".

Firm no. There should be and there will continue to be. Maybe for you all code is business/money-making code, but that is not true for everyone.

> We use computers to solve problems.

We can use computers for lots of things like having fun, making art, and even creating problems for other people.

> You get paid to get stuff done, period.

That is a strange assumption. Plenty of people are writing code without being paid for it.

>>mchave+7Z
> Plenty of people are writing code without being paid for it.

This is rhetorically a non sequitur. As in, if you get paid (X) then you get stuff done (Y). But if you're not paid (~X), then, ?

Not being paid doesn't mean one does or doesn't get stuff done, it has no bearing on it. So the parent wasn't saying anything about people who don't get paid, they can do whatever they want, but yes, at a job if you're paid, then you better get stuff done over bikeshedding.