This reads to as pure AI slop to me, and Pangram agrees (100% AI).
To use one of the idioms that give this impression, this is not just knee-jerk whining. It's material to what the article is about. If you're going to raise this topic, be a human and say something constructive. An AI generated ragebait whinge about ragebait is ragebait squared with a heaped serving of hypocrisy on top. This exemplifies everything it complains about.
I ran the same check, and was saddened, because I agree with his point of view, and generally enjoyed the article. But partway through, the "this sounds like AI" alarm went off in my head. Using AI to write an article criticizing the use of AI, and worse, not disclosing it, is distasteful. Especially since Stephen Diehl was writing long before ChatGPT emerged (with blog posts dating back to 2013). That someone could write but chooses not to somehow makes it worse.
Oh yeah, I also ran a Pangram check of his Gamestop post from 2021 (similar topic and theme) and it came up as 100% human-written, so it is less likely that this is a case of Pangram penalizing a human being for having a specific writing style. Here is the URL: https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/gamestop/
But forget Pangram. This passage, from the conclusion, is 100% rock-solid proof that Claude was a key contributor.
> "The question is not whether the internet contains useful things. It does. The question is whether human existence should be organised around alien and inhuman objective functions no human chose and nobody can inspect or understand."
Also, I think that "grift" (repeated throughout the article) is very poorly defined. I also think that most cryptocurrencies are, in the general case, a bad example of a "grift."
But this guy's talking about drop-shippers, life coaches, cryptocurrency, online "influencing" in general, and other things. Very few of those fit your own definition, as there's nothing illicit involved.
In some cases, e.g. if you compare cryptocurrency to drop-shipping, there's not even much common ground, except "markets things through social media."
Yeah, for practical use I'm more interested in the author's sqlelf tool for querying actual ELF binaries than the use of sqlite for the runnable binary itself. The latter is super cool but sounds like too much of a performance hit to be practical.
The whole thing is brilliant anyway. Up with this sort of thing!
OpenAI has 4,500 employees and a post-money valuation of $852 billion at its last funding round. You'd think they could get someone who specialises in writing MacOS apps to write their MacOS app.
Hopefully at some point gravity pulls them back down and they reach the maturity and humility to realize that LLMs are just tools and even though they're good for many things, you can't do absolutely everything with them.
I think the "maturity and humility" phase of the LLM hype cycle is probably still 2-3 years into the future.
And that phase probably comes immediately after the "LLMs overinvestments have caused a massive global recession".
The bun rewrite is looked to as proof that this sort of full-throttle
vibecoding is the future of software development, at least for large porting projects like this one, and for many people on this site that is a high stakes question.
To prove that, a proper release is needed, and the Bun community needs to adopt it. There's a huge partisan eagerness to declare the Claude Code release or anecdotal experiences on the canary as victory, but the viability of 1.4 hasn't been demonstrated until it has been released and adopted by the bulk of the community.
There isn't actually any hurry on that. Nobody needs Bun 1.4 tomorrow. It's Jarred that keeps saying it'll be released tomorrow, while the code churns at an astonishing rate (see below). People with a skeptical outlook will inevitably suspect that he doesn't have confidence in the release and is struggling to acquire it.
Github insights for the last week:
> Excluding merges, 57 authors have pushed 349 commits to main and 6892 commits to all branches.
> On main, 2026 files have changed and there have been 189,502 additions and 133,836 deletions
Sure but that’s how you beta test a runtime, by using it in a codebase you control. Claude is publicly released and used widely, that’s still only a single codebase
> It's insane to make that kind of claim without backing it up.
A bizarre accusation. It's a fork of Bun that says they removed the dead code. All you have to do to see the diffs is look at its history. Most of the commits are code removal.
It's a fork of Zig bun, though, not Rust, so hardly relevant to the AI argument.
That was 11,000 lines of dead code removed from pre-rust Bun. In a million lines of vibed Rust Bun I'd be astonished if there was a mere 11,000 unused LoC. Noticing unused code isn't a strength of LLMs in my experience.
To use one of the idioms that give this impression, this is not just knee-jerk whining. It's material to what the article is about. If you're going to raise this topic, be a human and say something constructive. An AI generated ragebait whinge about ragebait is ragebait squared with a heaped serving of hypocrisy on top. This exemplifies everything it complains about.
reply