@zie1ony / OP - how do you make your clients believe you are not planting a crypto-locker or logic bomb or some other 3-letters-agencies "features"? And why would clients replace existing AI slop with your post-another-slop handwritten code? Do you check it for vulns and, most important, have you considered that later clients will sue you for ? Providing there is no major data leak, in which case you may end up proving your innocence from behind bars?
We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
201–210 of 263 posts
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow this line of reasoning. Would it have been meaningfully different if OP had used open-weight models like GLM or DeepSeek? Does it really matter considering we'll have superior models next quarter?
The meaningful difference is that you will not experience EOS if (when) anthropic/openai/etc fails to become profitable and is no longer subsidized by capital funding. While "vibe-coded" apps do help lots of people who didnt have the time/money/skills to create their projects, you should be aware that currently the compute is being subsidized so that users become reliant/used to the service.
I believe vibe coding in general is a bad business strategy whether you use FOSS models or not because it means your product probably doesn't have any "secret sauce" (leaving code maintainability problems aside). By that I mean a carefully researched innovation that gives the edge to your product. Nevertheless, using FOSS models is clearly better for the reason you mentioned. I believe serious businesses will transition into using AI on-premise in a very restrictive manner (eg: AI only for tests and reviews policy, etc.). We'll once the dust is settled.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#203I was waiting for the new spaghetti cowboys to arrive. Good luck guys, but keep in mind that a 1000 cores can do a lot more damage than 3 people can fix.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This industry's complete outsourcing of its core business value on a third party proprietary subscription based tool, Claude, made by an unprofitable company, Anthropic, is very concerning. You are all lunatics, sorry.
I don't follow this line of reasoning. Would it have been meaningfully different if OP had used open-weight models like GLM or DeepSeek? Does it really matter considering we'll have superior models next quarter?
Put on the hats of a risk manager or supply chain manager. Yes, that would have mattered. What you insource today, you can repeat tomorrow. If you know the price of an input will multiply in the near future, you should at least develop processes that can handle disruption. If you expect dirt cheap LLM’s to remain available, or even better: improve in quality, feel free to make that assumption explicit and keep using the external supply. I don’t know what the future holds, but the vibe your software organizations cannot go back to manual development once LoC has exploded. I hope firms are making these choices deliberately.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meaningful difference is that you will not experience EOS if (when) anthropic/openai/etc fails to become profitable and is no longer subsidized by capital funding. While "vibe-coded" apps do help lots of people who didnt have the time/money/skills to create their projects, you should be aware that currently the compute is being subsidized so that users become reliant/used to the service.
I believe vibe coding in general is a bad business strategy whether you use FOSS models or not because it means your product probably doesn't have any "secret sauce" (leaving code maintainability problems aside). By that I mean a carefully researched innovation that gives the edge to your product. Nevertheless, using FOSS models is clearly better for the reason you mentioned. I believe serious businesses will transit…
The question is if your "secret sauce" will stay secret as you use Anthropic's products, considering they've been launching specialised models like Claude Legal and Design. What happened to Figma with Claude Design should be a warning sign.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#206“We use Claude Code too” I understand that it’s probably impossible to sell non-AI-assisted solutions to AI-pilled companies (even when their headaches are AI-induced), but my gut reaction to “take an AI-inflated codebase and apply AI deflation to it” is something like “that’s akin to applying two rounds of lossy transcoding; the errors don’t cancel out, they cross-multiply”.
I’ve reviewed and worked on a lot of vibe coded apps (I’m an engineer, 20 YOE). I can basically split it into 3 groups. 1) Pure vibe code. No software experience. 2) AI with someone who knows the software development process and some things about software, but can’t code. 3) Engineers using AI assistance, reading/reviewing code, forcing structure. If someone can pay to replace #1 with #3 it’s very worth it. The quali…
Thanks for writing this. In my refactoring process I also start with code profiling. Opus is good, at finding hand written code, which sometimes is a good starting point of understand the codebase in general.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#207“We use Claude Code too” I understand that it’s probably impossible to sell non-AI-assisted solutions to AI-pilled companies (even when their headaches are AI-induced), but my gut reaction to “take an AI-inflated codebase and apply AI deflation to it” is something like “that’s akin to applying two rounds of lossy transcoding; the errors don’t cancel out, they cross-multiply”.
Ngl I’m doing this right now for a client. Part of my strategy is to write out e2e tests that get a certain baseline of functionality, and then use that as the check for any change that I make to the codebase to make sure it continues to work. So workflow for a full web app is make e2e tests for all use cases. Then add a very strict duplication checker, and linter, and then just tell the ai to hit a certain duplicati…
I have also experimented with mutation testing. But the side effect of this approach is that it keeps public interfaces intact, and most of cases you don't want that.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t think this is anything new, really: Businesses have been running software that we’d call a “big ball of mud” [1] forever. Well but something really is something totally new. Github went from x commits per year in 2025 (when AI-slop was already being pushed to Github) to the same number of commits in four weeks in 2026. 2025 compared to 2024 was already something like 15x. It's never happened in the history…
Most of the new Github bloat will just be thrown away. Vibe coding scratches an immediate itch and it's easy to do. Once the problem changes nobody is going to update the first project because that's hard, they'll just vibe code an entirely new solution leaving the first to rot until they delete their dead repo clutter or move on from the company and the account and all of its repos are deleted in one fell swoop.
How do you "throw away" the bloat when it becomes embedded through the code base? Is GitHub just going to rollback to some commit from 3 years ago?
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#209> One week. Three senior engineers. $10,000. What your markup on their salaries? For the level of work you're promising, it sounds like they may be at market or below.
This seems like a easy way to get into consulting. Once you deliver the code back to the owners they are going to do the vibe coding again on the top whatever refactored code you get back. In other words it can become a perpetual cycle.
The goal is to avoid it and build such a structure and guidlines for the codebase, so it can refactor itself when needed, but based on the architecture defined by us. With good set of docs and new feature definition you can most of the time use /grill-me with good outcomes.
Re: We charge $10k a week to delete AI-generated code
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems fine to me. > Then we [perform the act of] cut[ting]: [thereby,] the fourteen date formatters become (i.e. are replaced with) one,
It's the AI-generated writing that seems off (I'm assuming that's what OP meant)
essentially, yes
it's not about the prose quality, but about the fact that it seems like the service of deleting ai-generated code is also going to be ai-generated, or at least the service is being advertised via ai-generated text, which is…funny