The github page that's being pointed to has already taken down the code. Unlike the fools that posted the WinAmp source code, they actually know how to wipe out the commits. However, I found that searching github with leaked Claude Code language:TypeScript was enough to find several mirrors of the code.

That's because I know better. You'll figure it out someday as well. It's a little surprising you haven't figured it out already.

I suspect you might know already, even if you don't want to admit it. That's why you're attacking me instead of addressing my claim.

There are other dangers to using AI far worse than just some shoddy code and sketchy documentation, such as cognitive atrophy and loss of brain plasticity, that should concern you as well.

There is also a growing body of evidence that calls the productivity gains into question. Is AI really worth the cost?

wtf is that llm-generated summary, editors?

Half of the things in there are not new information.

Oh, I can understand the private credit markets. I just donâ(TM)t think theyâ(TM)re a good investment. same with bitcoin.

The code they write is an absolute shit-show for a number of reasons.
You can get work done, if you don't mind the glaring fucking inefficiency of it- time wasted trying to coax it into doing what you want, how you want it- more spaghetti-at-the-wall write-test cycles than you'd expect for a first-year programmer, glaring logic errors that you need to correct (that to be fair, usually come from a lack of fleshed-out instruction on your part- but still, if my instructions are larger than the code, what prize have I won?), but I do find that they're quite alright at having a chunk of code stuffed into their context and coming up with unit tests for everything they notice within it. Sometimes they even surprise me and come up with tests for things I didn't think of.

Not that many apparently.
They talk like that in the board room, they talk like that when it's 2 CEOs out for a drink (and you got drug along, since you're the Chief Engineer), and they talk that way when they're just shooting the shit.
Hanging out with groups of executives in Vegas during conventions leads me to want to fucking kill myself. It's not human conversation. It's weird cosplaying.

Board of directors. You're crossing boards and groups, and it has confused you.

Bullshit.

And if you said that to the person who said it in the board of directors that I sit on, that would be the last thing you ever said in it, and subsequently, that position.

Board of Directors for a medium sized LLC, and smaller LLCs that we acquired before dissolving.

I find they're quite excellent at writing unit tests.
Better than writing well-thought-out code, for sure.

20 years here, and I'm wondering if you've actually tried.

Some models have been overly-sycophantic, however that's the exception- and a gross failure in fine-tuning, not the norm.
ChatGPT 5.2:

That being said- I do agree with the final point: If you're one of those people who has a serious inferiority complex, or some kind of gross insecurity, you're going to swallow up affirmation when models produce it.
But a lot of work goes into trying to make sure they don't.

Let them do all their code with AI. Please. When it all comes crashing to the ground, they will have to hire real developers for real money to come in and try to fix the slop.

Completely incorrect.
An LLM remembers nothing that doesn't fit into its context.
To that end, we have standardized files that are pumped into the context as a form of "long term guidance/memory". The engine has nothing to do with this.

Also completely incorrect.
It'll do as you ask. If you ask it to refactor at some threshold of attempts at getting the test to pass with an implementation- it will.

Tech debt in LLM output is real, and yes- precisely because nobody gives a fuck what it's producing, and thus doesn't really understand it.
However, generative models are not "copying and modding".

Thus practice may be very bad for your health. Not that these "executives" care, but you should.

Yes. And that is how AWS got their 13 hour (?) outage. That outage was probably more expensive than what they can save in cost over a year or several by using LLMs as surrogate coders.

Why stop there? Make it part of the start-up message and if there is none, add one!

Well, the routinely clueless economics graduates certainly think so. My take is that in a few years actually competent coders will be in high demand to fix the mess and out out a lot of fires. When that happens and if you are inclined to participate, make them pay through the nose.

Sounds like very risky behavior. But some people are simply not smart...