Performance and telemetry analysis of Trae IDE, ByteDance's VSCode fork

simple as

TL;DR: Because of the bullshit asymmetry principle. Maybe the conclusions below are sound, have a read and try to wade through ;-)

Let us address the underlying assumptions and implications in the argument that the provenance of a report, specifically whether it was written with the assistance of AI, should not matter as long as the conclusions are sound.

This position, while intuitively appealing in its focus on the end result, overlooks several important dimensions of communication, trust, and epistemic responsibility. The process by which information is generated is not merely a trivial detail, it is a critical component of how that information is evaluated, contextualized, and ultimately trusted by its audience. The notion that it feels wrong is not simply a matter of subjective discomfort, but often reflects deeper concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential for subtle biases or errors introduced by automated systems.

In academic, journalistic, and technical contexts, the methodology is often as important as the findings themselves. If a report is generated or heavily assisted by AI, it may inherit certain limitations, such as a lack of domain-specific nuance, the potential for hallucinated facts, or the unintentional propagation of biases present in the training data. Disclosing the use of AI is not about stigmatizing the tool, but about providing the audience with the necessary context to critically assess the reliability and limitations of the information presented. This is especially pertinent in environments where accuracy and trust are paramount, and where the audience may need to know whether to apply additional scrutiny or verification.

Transparency about the use of AI is a matter of intellectual honesty and respect for the audience. When readers are aware of the tools and processes behind a piece of writing, they are better equipped to interpret its strengths and weaknesses. Concealing or omitting this information, even unintentionally, can erode trust if it is later discovered, leading to skepticism not just about the specific report, but about the integrity of the author or institution as a whole.

This is not a hypothetical concern, there are numerous documented cases (eg in legal filings https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/) where lack of disclosure about AI involvement has led to public backlash or diminished credibility. Thus, the call for transparency is not a pedantic demand, but a practical safeguard for maintaining trust in an era where the boundaries between human and machine-generated content are increasingly blurred.

I'm trying ZED too, which I believe as a commercial product comes with telemetry too.. but yeah, learning advanced rules of a personal firewall always helpful!

I can't decide to read something because the conclusions are sound. I have to read the entire thing to find out if the conclusions are sound. What's more, if it's an LLM, it's going to try its gradient-following best to make unsound reasoning seem sound. I have to be an expert to tell that it is a moron.

I can't put that kind of work into every piece of worthless slop on the internet. If an LLM says something interesting, I'm sure a human will tell me about it.

The reason people are smelling LLMs everywhere is because LLMs are low-signal, high-effort. The disappointment one feels when a model starts going off the rails is conditioning people to detect and be repulsed by even the slightest whiff of a robotic word choice.

edit: I feel like we discovered the direction in which AGI lies but we don't have the math to make it converge, so every AI we make goes completely insane after being asked three to five questions. So we've created architectures where models keep copious notes about what they're doing, and we carefully watch them to see if they've gone insane yet. When they inevitably do, we quickly kill them, create a new one from scratch, and feed it the notes the old one left. AI slop reads like a dozen cycles of that. A group effort, created by a series of new hires, silently killed after a single interaction with the work.