It's one thing if your code is really truly "co-authored by" Claude. It's another thing if it isn't even really co-authored by you.
Evidently the majority of people see no problem with LLM prose, but me and many others think it is some of the most annoying crap possible. Please consider speaking in your own voice.
I know this gets repetitive, but it is important.
Useful or not, another Amiga / Unix fan probably had fun and some learnings too.
At the very least, the real-world impact is that tokens have been spent, the outputs open sourced.
It would be nice to hear their voice survive the loops of agentic abstraction of course but I don't know if that is even possible at that higha level.
Maybe it's that, maybe it's "just another issue of alignment"? Potentially serious in aggregate and over time..
I personally don't mind the imo little "neuralese" (is that what we call it now?) here specifically. In any case it's good for you that you can (still?) tell?
Why not applaud the playground time/energy/token budget directed? Especially as a decades long NetBSD (and Amiga:) fan I do appreciate multitudes; maybe here not exactly the case in tone of writing but in relatively cheap, fun experiments / projects during the agentic take-off of 2026. The whole trend reminds me a bit of remix/DJ culture; the "producing DJ"?
It's annoying how many people think they have discovered the cheat code to collect Manhattens for trinkets.
Post has 143 points at this writing; a noticeable number of people seem to feel differently
It’s cool they’ve managed various agents to get their end result but I’ve always been interested in coding, computer science and maths rather than tech savvy management
And perhaps tech savvy manager will replace programmers but if I wanted to get into management and business analysis then I would have done so
Never underestimate the impact of a good, tech savvy, manager.
LLM generated text lacks a certain "soul" to it, and it becomes more and more empty the more places one reads it.
It has a certain quality to it that, when read again and again, feels hollow. That hollowness comes not only from the text itself and the same sentence structures and turns of a phrase, but also (and yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#... ) that it suggests that the author didn't do more than massage the text with their eyeballs (as my high school Latin teacher accused me of doing).
And so, why should I (a human mind running on wet stuff and fueled with caffeine and various sugars from my morning soda and breakfast roll) pay any significant amount of my limited attention during a day on something that shows no indication that it was ever had its human co-author think about a single word that was put into the page?
And sometimes, the text belies that it wasn't written by a human as it misses things that are part of the human experience (or adds things that are not). "Keymap, disk, partition sizes, package set — then it shows you what it is about to do. Real time, with the long waits taken out." No human would write that. No human proofread it.
There is a deluge of content out there. Far too much for me to read everything that might be interesting. Text that looks like it's written entirely by an AI is more likely to be uninteresting than something that was crafted by a human.
If the page itself hasn't shown indication of a few seconds or minutes of a human touch... how much time should I spend reading it to see if it might be interesting to read more or look into the project?
These comments are even more annoying. Sides that are winning don't have to constantly tell their opponents that they're losing. I have no idea why you and so many others seem to have attached their ego to the use of a tool that you feel the need to attack people who have complaints about the output it's often used to generate.
Other than just than "we can" and historic interest, I can't imagine why anyone would choose to run System Vr4 over 4.4BSD, especially since the latest NetBSD 11 release still fully supports Amiga[0]
As in ... "the AI brought it back to life, but it came back /wrong/".
One thing I really don't get, and I really hope I never do, is leave the front page/README/etc so ... Claude-ified (or GPT, plausibly, I guess):
native SCSI and ethernet drivers, proven on real hardware
Quake — runs; a benchmark more than a game, for now
running under emulation, real hardware next
The grimoire records both, confidence-tagged
I know others will say the same about seeing LLM usage at all, and yeah... I don't really have a defense. It just feels like the "bare minimum of decency" to, well, at least make the front page less LLM-sounding.
With regards to 68080, the toolchain that can make use of all features of 68080, is based on some old GCC and currently hosted on Linux amd64 which is a shame. And if original Amiga target is desired, this toolchain can do it too, and it is told to be more optimal than other compilers, especially self-hosted ones. GCC first lost ability to run on Amiga, then lost ability to generate m68k code.
[dead]
A good, tech savvy manager is the stuff of legends, like the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot.
This is an observable spectrum with which can influence the kind of team you have in your landing spot.
Can you do that? You absolutely can. Does everyone do that? No, absolutely not.
It’s not a black and white issue. And, honestly, it’s quite narrow sighted and narrow minded to think so.
The dev is not the middleman because Claude is not the author. Claude is the tool.
Criticisms should have substance.
Using the services of a human editor is not plagiarism, and mere editing is not considered coauthorship. Mentioning or thanking the editor is just a courtesy, or a contractual obligation at most. LLMs don’t need thanks so most people probably agree it’s fine not to mention it in a casual blog post if its part really is just editorial, brainstorming aid, or similar. (But context-specific terms and conditions apply, obviously.)
What is absolutely not editorial use is making a hundred-word prompt and asking an LLM to expand it to a thousand-word blog post, or a thousand-line computer program, just like it wouldn’t be to ask or pay another human to do it for you. At most you’re then a coauthor of the LLM. This should be obvious, really, we have literally hundreds of years of history on the ethics and norms of assigning authorship on creative works. LLMs should change very little of that.
And then there’s the quality issue. If there were a human author that ghost-wrote blog posts or program code for people, and their output would always have the same known quality and accuracy issues, I’d want to be warned rather than having to spend time on figuring it out every time. Reputation matters.
Nostalgia is my guess.
SVR4 on Amiga was the first SVR4 commercial release IIRC. Solaris 2.x came later, but not much later.
At Sun we had a saying for referring to garbage from the SVR4 that we had to fix, rewrite, or terminate with prejudice over time (think STREAMS, XTI, and all that, but also much of userland): 'it came from New Jersey'. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to run SVR4 for any reason other than nostalgia, and honestly not even nostalgia. For me nostalgia is for OpenSolaris and such.
With X, using an Amiga 3000/4000 as a daily driver is possible. I did use an IBM PowerPC 43P as a daily driver under AIX 3.1 for a long while (until I gave up on having ssh working on it).
The 43P was, however, paired to a humongous Intergraph CRT that I can't move across a national border because of the amount of rare earths used to make it, and was a very ample desktop for the 2010s. Until the advent of 4K monitors, I didn't have anything beating that - on a VGA connection. The Amiga is far more limited than that.
In terms of vintage Unix desktops, it's hard to beat Acorn's RISC/iX with its IXI desktop. I believe Atari Unix also had something similarly cool.
So close, but still so far. It took several more years before I got some hardware that would run either NetBSD or Linux.
But still, somehow, when I see a Claudish README, it instantly gives me the ick. Write about your project. Tell us why you built it. Talk about the problems the bot helped you work through. I'm not going to judge you for not being able to code it all up yourself - but at least write the README in your own voice and tell me why you cared enough to do it.
Maybe Amiga people are ready to drink from that chalice too?
If it didn't matter to them, they wouldn't have commented what they did.
If that's something to be jealous of, I guess?
I've never (ever) bought a phone because of what it looks like in marketing material.
All his marketing has been via AI renders
The same for human editors, about whom I have slightly more nuanced view. I do believe that some of them are offering services that amount to ghostwriting and are often unethical. I've seen people make careers in the humanities where I'd say the paid editor (who also had studied the subject area) would at least be a co-author, if not the person who in the end deserved most of the credit. I've seen that with my own eyes as someone who worked for 20 years as a researcher in academia. That's why I've always rejected private editors that many of my colleagues have employed. It's a deeply unethical practice, not at all as harmless as you describe it.
That being said, the comparison to editors also doesn't apply because, again, LLMs aren't persons and do not have authorship. They neither are persons and authors in a legal sense, nor does it makes much sense from an ethical perspective to grant them personhood and authorship. If that made sense, then I'd agree with you that they should be mentioned as co-authors or authors. I'd have no problem whatsoever with academic and other works written by LLMs and giving credit to them. However, I don't see we're there yet.
Regarding the quality issue: What I'm saying and what my stance is is exactly that the works of persons or LLMs or persons who use LLMs for writing code or texts must and should always be evaluated the same, namely based on the merits of the content alone. That would be even more important if LLMs were persons and could be attributed authorship -- but they can't.
You arguments don't work because they're based on incorrect assumptions about what LLMs are. They are tools. You might find it dishonest when people use them without stating that, and that's fine, but then you shouldn't base your views on unrelated issues like plagiarism, copyright, and editors. My hunch is that people like you simply can't cope with the change, and, again, I'm saying that as someone who barely uses AI for programming and has never and will never use it for writing. Please stop the whining. I'll be honest, to me personally, these anti-AI rants are intellectually insulting because they seem to imply that humans cannot stand against AI by the quality of their own works and require some extra protectionism.
I think there are worse clowns in corpos without careers on YouTube.