zlacker

Thanks for weighing in here

If I might make a suggestion, based on how fast things change, even within a model family, you may benefit from saying Claude what. I was especially cognizant of this given the recent v4 release which (of course) hailed as the second coming. Regardless, you may want to update your readme to say

It may also be wildly out of scope for including in a project's readme, but knowing which of the bazillions of coding tools you used would also help a tiny bit with this reproduction crises found in every single one of these style threads

>>mdanie+(OP)
> It may also be wildly out of scope for including in a project's readme

The entire point of the repository seems to be to invalidate/validate the thesis if LLMs are good enough to be pair programmers right now. Removing it from the README makes no sense in that context.

>>diggan+n
I did consider that, but the repo isn't called "kentonv does a yolo" it's straight-up labeled as a provider library for CF workers under Cloudflare's brand

Some hair splitting about whether including the Claude stanza is "full disclosure," or "AI advocacy," or just because it's cool

Anyway, I mentioned the out of scope because if half the readme is about correct usage of the library, and half is about the sausage making, I'd be confused as a reader about whether this was designed to be for real or for funzies

>>mdanie+(OP)
I believe it's important to say when AI was used so heavily in building a library -- it would feel dishonest to me to claim I wrote it all myself. I also think it's just a pretty interesting thing to know about. So I think it belongs in the readme. (But I'm not making a moral judgment on what anyone else does.)

It was almost entirely Claude Sonnet 3.7. I agree I should add the version to the readme.

>>diggan+n
This library is a core component of our MCP framework, it's not just an experiment.

>>mdanie+i1
I found it pretty strange to include in the readme as well. Like, imagine someone relied on fiverr or codementor.io to write this code. It'd be weird to say in the readme "I was fairly skeptical that I could get quality code written on Fiverr, but I tried it and it turns out it was pretty good!"

My guess is there were some push to doing anything related to AI at the company. I feel a lot of companies are doing this these days.

>>kenton+V1
That's interesting. My experience with Sonnet 3.7 early this year was pretty poor: It simply couldn't reach the correct solution alone, even when explaining the issues explicitly. The proposed invalid solution was not too far from the correct one, so you could fix it manually if you knew what you were doing, but then the way the code was structured was not something that I would like to maintain in a real project. All this on top of the usual UX issues like hallucinated APIs. The experience refactoring was even worse.

I guess your mileage is highly dependent on the domain of your problem? In my case was GIS by the way

>>uludag+u3
Other way around. I pushed myself to try this, and then based on the result ended up pushing the company to adopt AI more.