[dead]
90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
131–140 of 252 posts
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is useful in answering the grandparent comment's question: stars : uniq(k) 1 : 14946505 10 : 1196622 100 : 213026 1000 : 28944 10000 : 1847 100000 : 20
each line (mostly) being equal length provides me an odd comfort
power law distribution ~1/x I think
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#133Perfect example of a base rate fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.
Activity isn't a good measurement for this, because AI can vibeslop thousands of lines per day of code that isn't necessarily useful for anything but increasing activity.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#134Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…
I think the instability is mostly due to the CEO running away at the same time as a forced Azure migration where the VP of engineering ran away. There’s only so much stability you can expect from a ship that’s missing 2 captains.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#135Shout out to Broadwayscore by thomaspryor@github At 2mo old - nearly a 1GB repo, 24M loc, 52K commits https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore Polished site: https://broadwayscorecard.com/
“A fully staged “Sweeney Todd” opened Sunday at Broadway’s Lunt.”
That's the kind of "highlight" from a review when you use AI to extract/summarize content instead of asking a real human editor to do the job.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#136Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…
In a (possibly near) future where most new code is generated by AI bots, the code itself becomes incidental/commodotized and it's nothing more than an intermediate representation (IR) of whatever solution it was prompt-engineered to produce. The value will come from the proposals, reviews, and specifications that caused that code to be produced. Github is still code-centric with issues and discussions being auxilliar…
This is exactly what people said about the "low code revolution".
Not saying that you are wrong, necessarily. But I think it's still a pretty broad presumption.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#137Stars ceased to be relevant a long time ago, around the time Github went from a beloved pillar of the open-source community to just another facet of the Microsoft behemoth.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#138Shout out to Broadwayscore by thomaspryor@github At 2mo old - nearly a 1GB repo, 24M loc, 52K commits https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore Polished site: https://broadwayscorecard.com/
I was really confused how this could be possible for such a seemingly simple site but it looks like it's storing + writing many new commits every time there's a new review, or new financial data, or a new show, etc. Someone might want to tell the author to ask Claude what a database is typically used for...
What is git if not a database for source code?
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep hearing this, and I know Azure has had some issues recently, but I rarely have an issue with Azure like I do with GitHub. I have close to 100 websites on Azure, running on .NET, mostly on Azure App Service (some on Windows 2016 VMs). These sites don't see the type of traffic or amount of features that GitHub has, but if we're talking about Azure being the issue, I'm wondering if I just don't see this because t…
Running on Azure is not the same as migrating to Azure. Making big changes like the tech that underpins your product while still actively developing that product means a lot of things in a complicated system changing at once which is usually a recipe for problems. Incidentally I think that is part of the current problem with AI generated code. Its a fire hose of changes in systems that were never designed or barely h…
> Its a fire hose of changes in systems that were never designed or barely holding together
Yeah... my career hasn't been that long but I've only ever worked on one system that wasn't held together by duct-tape and a lot that were way more complicated than they needed to be.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#140Do people really put weight in stars? It seems completely unrelated to anything but, well, popularity. Even when I modify other peoples' code I fork to a private repo and maintain my changes separately, and I'm fairly certain I have never starred a repo.
Stars have been useless as signals for project quality for a while. They’re mostly bought, at this point. I regularly see obviously vibe-coded nonsense projects on GitHub’s Trending page with 10,000 stars. I don’t believe 10,000 people have even cloned the repo, much less gotten any personal value from it. It’s meaningless.
Meaningless is maybe too strong.
I have 60-ish repos, vast majority are zero star, one or two with a star or two, one with 25-ish. It’s a signal to me of interest in and usage of that project.
Doesn’t mean stars are perfect, or can’t be gamed, or anything in a universally true generalization sense. But also not meaningless.