71–80 of 129 posts
This is some Andy Rooney whine-fest. Who cares? Don’t do it. Don’t read it. You don’t have to announce your displeasure to the world.
> You don’t have to announce your displeasure to the world. If your spaces that were previously full of interesting things suddenly become deluged with uninteresting things then that is something to complain about.
Edit: for me the most practical insight to come out of these threads, so far, is that Show HNs for generated repos/sites/projects would be more interesting if submitters were required to share the prompts, and not just the generated output. For such projects, the prompts are the real source, while the GH repo or generated artifact is actually the object code, and if that's all that's shared, it's less interesting and…
“Share the prompts” How would that be feasible for a project of any complexity whatsoever?
> Authors should be asked to indicate categories of AI use (e.g., literature discovery, data analysis, code generation, language editing), not narrate workflows or share prompts. This standardization reduces ambiguity, minimizes burden, and creates consistent signals for editors without inviting overinterpretation. Crucially, such declarations should be routine and neutral, not framed as exceptional or suspicious.
I think that sharing at least some of the prompts is a reasonable thing to do/require. I log every prompt to a LLM that I make. Still, I think this is a discussion worth having.
[1] https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/02/03/why-authors-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Share the prompts” How would that be feasible for a project of any complexity whatsoever?
I'm reminded of something I read recently about disclosure of AI use in scientific papers [1]: > Authors should be asked to indicate categories of AI use (e.g., literature discovery, data analysis, code generation, language editing), not narrate workflows or share prompts. This standardization reduces ambiguity, minimizes burden, and creates consistent signals for editors without inviting overinterpretation. Cruciall…
If I have a vibe coded project with 175k lines of python, there would be genuinely thousands and thousands of prompts to hundreds of agents, some fed into one another.
Whats the worth of digging through that? What do you learn? How would you know that I shared all of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Share the prompts” How would that be feasible for a project of any complexity whatsoever?
I'm reminded of something I read recently about disclosure of AI use in scientific papers [1]: > Authors should be asked to indicate categories of AI use (e.g., literature discovery, data analysis, code generation, language editing), not narrate workflows or share prompts. This standardization reduces ambiguity, minimizes burden, and creates consistent signals for editors without inviting overinterpretation. Cruciall…
How many do you have in the log total?
What I hate is people posting links to their blog post which upon viewing is really just an extended twitter sized rant.
Why? What's the cutoff point of length that you would accept? If they'd used AI to artificially increase the length of their content, would you be happier?
To write such quick note about AI slop a few days after they had a show hn with something that looks a bit like AI slop amused me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded of something I read recently about disclosure of AI use in scientific papers [1]: > Authors should be asked to indicate categories of AI use (e.g., literature discovery, data analysis, code generation, language editing), not narrate workflows or share prompts. This standardization reduces ambiguity, minimizes burden, and creates consistent signals for editors without inviting overinterpretation. Cruciall…
> I log every prompt to a LLM that I make. How many do you have in the log total?
A few caveats: I'm not a heavy LLM user (this is probably what you're getting at) and the following is a low estimate. Often, I'll save the URL only for the first prompt and just put all subsequent prompts under that one URL.
Anyhow, running a simple grep command suggests that I have at least 82 prompts saved.
In my view, it would be better to organize saved prompts by project. This system was not set up with prompt disclosure in mind, so getting prompts for any particular project would be annoying. The point is more to keep track of what I'm thinking of at a point in time.
Right now, I don't think there are tools to properly "share the prompts" at the scale you mentioned in your other comment, but I think we will have those tools in the future. This is a real and tractable problem.
> Whats the worth of digging through that? What do you learn? How would you know that I shared all of them?
The same questions could be asked for the source code of any large scale project. The answers to the first two are going to depend on the project. I've learned quite a bit from looking at source code, personally, and I'm sure I could learn a lot from looking at prompts. As for the third question, there's no guarantee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I log every prompt to a LLM that I make. How many do you have in the log total?
I have a daily journal where I put every online post I make. I include anything I send to a LLM on my own time in there. (I have a separate work log on their computer, though I don't log my work prompts.) Likely I miss a few posts/prompts, but this should have the vast majority. A few caveats: I'm not a heavy LLM user (this is probably what you're getting at) and the following is a low estimate. Often, I'll save the…
You might as well ask for a record of the conversations between two engineers while code was being written. That's what the chat is. I have a pre-pre-alpha project which already has potentially hundreds of "prompts"--really turns in continuing conversations. Some of them with 1 kind of embedded agent, some with another. Some with agents on the web with no project access.
Sometimes I would have conversations about plans that I drop. do I include those, if no code came out of them but my perspective changed or the agent's context changed so that later work was possible?
I don't mean to be dismissive, but maybe you don't have the necessary perspective to understand what you're asking for.
What, were the vibe coded in COBOL?
That is: I don't understand why the use of Claude Code itself renders them unworthy of discussion.