zlacker

> 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+(OP)
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

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

>>mdanie+V
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.

>>uludag+73
Other way around. I pushed myself to try this, and then based on the result ended up pushing the company to adopt AI more.