the most of them have zero stars..
90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
161–170 of 252 posts
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#162Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#163Already 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…
I'm definitely not an AI skeptic and I use it constantly for coding, but I don't think we are approaching this future at all without a new technological revolution.
Specifications accurate enough to describe the exact behaviors are basically equivalent to code, also in terms of length, so you basically just change language (and current LLM tech is not on course to be able to handle such big specifications)
Higher level specifications (the ones that make sense) leave some details and assumption to the implementation, so you can not safely ignore the implementation itself and you cannot recreate it easily (each LLM build could change the details and the little assumptions)
So yeah, while I agree that documentation and specifications are more and more important in the AI world, I don't see the path to the conclusions you are drawing
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#164Of course my claude repos have zero stars. Most of them were created in the past 4 months.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#165Has always been true.
90% of effort is going to repost with less than 2 stars hasn't changed
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#166Perfect 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.
Exactly, just pick one subset and make out as if a base rate is because of this one specific set. Backwards logic...
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#167Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#168Do 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.
I star repos as bookmarks. Don't know if there is another feature for that
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Most of my public repos have 0 stars. Most of what I write sucks.
GitHub Stars (or any online 'star count') is not an indicator of quality.
> not an indicator of quality
I mean, it’s an indicator. Just not a definitive—or individually sufficient—one.
Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. The people with the lowest self perception also have the lowest actual skill. Look at the chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect#...
I guess you linking to it was a self fulfilling prophecy If you read your own reference (not the picture, but where you took it from on Wikipedia) really really carefully, you might be able to tell why it so perfectly applies to you The person with little knowledge overestimates they're capability, and the person which actually knows how complicated [the thing] is , usually isn't as confident they mastered it. Your t…
You’re talking about a confidence and ability gap. I have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I accept all of that.
But the claim above was that having low confidence was correlated to higher skill. Ie, skill and confidence are anti correlated. The chart does not show that. The lowest data point for confidence is the point on the left of the chart. This is also the data point corresponding to people who have the least competence. Having low confidence is not evidence that you’re secretly an expert. Confidence and competence are still positively correlated according to that chart.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is not so strong that there are scores of novices convinced they are experts in a field. But in your case, I admit the data may not tell the full story.