211–220 of 252 posts
What a dumb metric to focus on.
What's more interesting to me is that Claude dramatically lowers the barrier to _testing_, not just writing code. I can mass-generate edge case tests that I'd never bother writing manually. The result is higher-quality solo repos that look "abandoned" by star count.
Is anyone tracking test coverage or CI pass rates for AI-assisted repos vs traditional ones? That seems like a much more useful signal than stars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're suggesting that an AI translation of, say, a novel removes human authorship from the result? Unless a human goes in and makes further "substantive transformations" to the AI generated work? And if that's not what you are saying then how are you determining that prompts to and AI are not copyrighted by the author of the prompt? The results are nothing more than a derivative work of the prompt. So you are fac…
https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part... > The Copyright Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include…
You are going to have to prove that things Claude stamps as co-authored are not the work of an "assisting instrument". It's certainly true that some vibe-coded one-shot thing might not apply.
I would also note that the applicant applying for copyright in your linked case explicitly refused guidance and advice from the examiner. That could well be because the creation of that specific work was not shaped much by that artist's efforts.
I wouldn't read too much into that when discussing a GitHub repo. It really will depend on how the user is using Claude and their willingness to demonstrate which parts they contributed themselves. You need to remember that copyright extends to plays and other works of performance. Everything the copyright office is saying in your linked ruling suggests that an AI-implementation of a human-design is copyrightable.
GitHub stars are very much the textbook example of where you'd expect to find a Pareto distribution.
For libraries: still probably mostly useful for personal code bases, but for developers with enough experience to modularize development efforts even for personal or niche projects.
I am bothered by huge vibe coded projects, for example like OpenClaw, that have huge amounts of code that has not undergone serious review, refactoring, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual number is that 98% have less than 2 stars (0 or 1). About 90.25% has zero stars.
Sounds like Claude commits are, on average, going into higher visibility repositories than humans… maybe the author would like to reconsider their approach?
- visibility
- popularity (technical, domain, persona)
- genuine utility
- novelty
...
There are also plenty of super high utility repos that are widely used (often indirectly), but don't have a lot of stars, or even a meagre amount.
Also there is the issue of star != star, because it's not granular.
It's similar to upvotes on general social media platforms. Everyone likes cute cats doing funny things somewhat, but only few people appreciate something that's more niche but way more impactful, useful or entertaining (or requires some effort to consume), but those who do, value it very highly. But the same person might use the same score (single upvote) for a cat video and a video that they value much higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual number is that 98% have less than 2 stars (0 or 1). About 90.25% has zero stars.
So Claude repos are statistically more likely to have stars than the average GitHub repo. Not the conclusion the headline was going for.