This is a bit more than overselling a proof of concept. He made claims that were not correct, and presented some LLM generated code as point of pride. And not on his blog, but a company's website.
He's emblematic of the era we now live in. Vibe coded projects that the "developer" didn't learn anything from, posted using LLMs. People have zero shame, zero curiosity, zero desire in learning and understanding what they're working on.
Also it doesn't make sense to escalate an interaction by swearing at a person and simultaneously asking them to calm down.
I’m plenty calm. There’s just nothing to debate here: the blog post and repo are a conscious, deliberate, and egregious misrepresentation of fact.
I would absolutely say exactly the same things to the author’s face as I’m saying right now. I would never work for a company that condones this in a million years, as a matter of principle.
In a real "engineering" role, this person would be stripped of their license for stamping "production grade" on a bunch of AI slop.
That doesn't exist in our trade, so yeah, public shaming is the next best thing. I sincerely hope links to this incident will haunt him every time someone googles his name forevermore.
I think it's a pretty big deal for a major company to put out a blog post about something that is "production grade" and pushing customers to use it without actually making it production grade.
The person who wrote the article probably does not benefit from lying, I don't think it was the intent. It is a bad post, don't get me wrong, but maybe there is no need to insult the author just for that.
When called out, they deleted the TODOs. They didn't implement them, they didn't fix the security problems, they just tried to cover it up. So no, at this point the dishonesty is deliberate.
I also can't help but feel bad for the author. However, when the first line of the README is
> A production-grade Matrix homeserver
this is engineering malpractice. It is also unethical to present the work of an LLM as your own.
> Is it really worth it?
Unequivocally yes.
Fraud is fraud, and if your first instinct is to defend it in this manner, check yourself in the mirror.
[dead]
[flagged]
This is a bit more than overselling a proof of concept. He made claims that were not correct, and presented some LLM generated code as point of pride. And not on his blog, but a company's website.
He's emblematic of the era we now live in. Vibe coded projects that the "developer" didn't learn anything from, posted using LLMs. People have zero shame, zero curiosity, zero desire in learning and understanding what they're working on.
Also it doesn't make sense to escalate an interaction by swearing at a person and simultaneously asking them to calm down.
I’m plenty calm. There’s just nothing to debate here: the blog post and repo are a conscious, deliberate, and egregious misrepresentation of fact.
I would absolutely say exactly the same things to the author’s face as I’m saying right now. I would never work for a company that condones this in a million years, as a matter of principle.
2 replies →
In a real "engineering" role, this person would be stripped of their license for stamping "production grade" on a bunch of AI slop.
That doesn't exist in our trade, so yeah, public shaming is the next best thing. I sincerely hope links to this incident will haunt him every time someone googles his name forevermore.
3 replies →
I think it's a pretty big deal for a major company to put out a blog post about something that is "production grade" and pushing customers to use it without actually making it production grade.
> They start by saying they "wanted to see if it was possible"
That's a generous read. From the actual article:
> We wanted to see if we could eliminate that tax entirely. Spoiler: We could.
Sure it's a bad post. But the guy did not make a nazi salute at a meeting...
We are getting tired of being lied to.
The person who wrote the article probably does not benefit from lying, I don't think it was the intent. It is a bad post, don't get me wrong, but maybe there is no need to insult the author just for that.
When called out, they deleted the TODOs. They didn't implement them, they didn't fix the security problems, they just tried to cover it up. So no, at this point the dishonesty is deliberate.