At this point we should be sharing prompts not code for solutions like OpenLogi. Reverse engineering many things can typically be one-shotted (ignoring things like.. capturing a pcap or whatever to aid the effort). Let others add their own taste to the solution.

If it matters is subjective. But personally I stop reading when I notice it’s AI text because there is never anything in it worth reading. It’s just a prompt expanded in to paragraphs of filler text.

This kind of tool doesn’t need a whole Apple style marketing page to sell you on it.

It also signals effort to me, when I see vibeslop text I know the project most likely is a one shot weekend project full of issues which won’t be resolved. I’ve seen good examples of AI use in open source, and those projects write the readme and website copy without AI.

> I'd rather read some well written LLM text over some poorly written human effort

I think it depends a bit what's meant by "poorly" but I don't think I share that preference at all.

I would 100% rather read a developers copy explaining why they wanted to build something and what they think is useful about it, even if it isn't particularly polished.

As a comparison, LLM generated "marketing schlock" is polished, but it's normally pretty empty and doesn't convey much of it's value.

As an example, I use lazygit (a TUI git interface) - at least at the time I looked at it, the main intro was a youtube video of the developer talking through the features. It wasn't polished at all, but it did a great job of convincing me that lazygit was a project with a lot of love and thought put into it.

Your LLM text is obviously not well written if we spot it after 2 seconds. I won’t read it, doesn’t matter how beautiful it is, it’s just pure cringe, I notice, roll my eyes, close the tab. Please give me the poorly written human effort. Is it really that hard to spend 10minutes reading what you produced to see if that feels genuine?

It matters to me because I notice and I hate it.

I read plenty of not-obviously-AI-generated text and I much prefer doing that, even if it’s not from a professional.

It’s not about the quality of the text itself. If Claude was one person with a human level of output, Claude would probably be considered decent at writing.

But when I have to read the same genre of slop on 1 million different sites it gets really really annoying imo.

It is an indicator of low effort.

If you didn't even spend a minute writing a couple sentences about your own project, how much effort did you put into actually building and testing it? Or are you just letting others do the hard parts: Review and verification that your vibe-slop actually works as claimed, and then feed their feedback back into an LLM?

> I'd rather read some well written LLM text over some poorly written human effort

I could not disagree more.

I don’t think it’s that hard; it just takes effort. And the effort is well worth it.

Most worthwhile things are hard without a bit of practice.

There's good technical prose on the site? It's all just fluff marketing that adds nothing.

> writing good technical prose is hard and a separate skill.

Hard things are hard. They’re not easy. But they’re worth it.

It's worth stating plainly: It's not just a common occurrence, it's a load bearing feature of modern tech writing. Full stop.