> NO Co-Authored-By: Claude trailer.
> NO " Generated with Claude Code" footer in PR bodies, commit messages, issue comments, or anywhere else.
I actually have a much better idea how to use AI responsibly: Simply don't use Claude to completely vibe code AND COMMIT your code.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is vibe-coded, in the bad sense, because of this line. There is no workflow that lets Claude write code AND commit, without PRs, that includes review by a human.
This is not the HN I signed up for. I don't mind AI use, responsible AI use, but zero oversight has not worked and will not work.
Gosh, It's so hard to be excited about any software project nowadays, because I cannot know how much effort was actually put into it. For all I know the author merely wrote a few prompts and paid Anthropic for the tokens. Good job I guess?
I think simply stating the extent of AI use openly is a good start. For example, this is what I've done on my hobby project[0]. I feel like an AI use disclosure page or document helps, especially when you didn't vibe-code but still used AI in a somewhat responsible way (for review, for writing tests, writing CI pipeline stuff, etc.).
"I actually have a much better idea how to use AI responsibly: Simply don't use Claude to completely vibe code AND COMMIT your code."
I usually open a new chat in the ide and ask it to "generate a commit message", then i copy paste it.
This means that if my code was written 20% by me and 80% by Google Antigravity, and Claude then adds a Co-Authored-By-line, then i think it's wrong. All it did was generate a commit message.
That's fair, but that workflow is amateurish at best anyway. You're free to do that, if that's how you work, or if it all gets squashed in the end regardless, but a more sustainable workflow is to make committing itself an explicit part of self-review.
Here's what I do:
`git commit -p`, which basically shows you chunks of changes and you can confirm whether you want to stage those changes. This forces you to briefly review your changes and allows you to select lines or chunks that you don't want to commit (yet).
Then, you have a lot of context, so then its much easier to compose a commit message. Your editor auto-opens at the end of that, so you type in WHY you made the changes (and if you don't know, at least put WHAT you did), save and close the editor, and that's one commit.
If you skip all of this, the commits are less likely to help you later when you need them.
I was gonna say that this kind of thing is a big yawn in the age of asking an LLM to do something like this. I think it would have been interesting if the author had gone a bit further and made it a useful command line tool for something. I'm impressed by demos to the extent that they show skill. I'm impressed by tools to the extent that they show an understanding of the process. I'm not sure whether this accomplishes either.
> I agree it's absurd that those 4 commits started this morning projects that get huge hype and screaming fanboys, but I don't think this is that.
Is that what I'm doing wrong?
If I start a new project this morning, push about four commits to it, and bang it up on here, it'll go to the front page? I'd love for anything I've done to get that much traction ;-)
When the topic is rendering 3d models using ASCII glyphs, we've already exited the realm of advantages and disadvantages. This is just supposed to be cool.
This is actually pretty awesome. I enjoyed going through all the models.
I'm also not sure why I love ASCII art so much. Maybe it's because it's such an abstract way to represent something, yet our brains make perfect sense of everything.
The shading is where it all comes to life.
What is the file size of one single model on average?
Thanks! The gallery holds real 3D files (.glb/.obj/.vox), ~300 KB each. The ASCII isn't stored, it's rendered live from the mesh. Its size only depends on the grid resolution, not the model: a full-screen view is ~150×50 characters, so around ~10 KB of text (a cube and a detailed mesh would produce the same byte count)
Is there a good reason not to use WebGL to render the scene and compute the character mapping? Even if you're dead set on outputting text to a `<pre>` you could write the ascii values out to a framebuffer and copy from that for a pretty significant speedup.
> NO Co-Authored-By: Claude trailer. > NO " Generated with Claude Code" footer in PR bodies, commit messages, issue comments, or anywhere else.
I actually have a much better idea how to use AI responsibly: Simply don't use Claude to completely vibe code AND COMMIT your code.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is vibe-coded, in the bad sense, because of this line. There is no workflow that lets Claude write code AND commit, without PRs, that includes review by a human.
This is not the HN I signed up for. I don't mind AI use, responsible AI use, but zero oversight has not worked and will not work.
[0]: https://libls.org/ai-use
I usually open a new chat in the ide and ask it to "generate a commit message", then i copy paste it.
This means that if my code was written 20% by me and 80% by Google Antigravity, and Claude then adds a Co-Authored-By-line, then i think it's wrong. All it did was generate a commit message.
Here's what I do:
`git commit -p`, which basically shows you chunks of changes and you can confirm whether you want to stage those changes. This forces you to briefly review your changes and allows you to select lines or chunks that you don't want to commit (yet).
Then, you have a lot of context, so then its much easier to compose a commit message. Your editor auto-opens at the end of that, so you type in WHY you made the changes (and if you don't know, at least put WHAT you did), save and close the editor, and that's one commit.
If you skip all of this, the commits are less likely to help you later when you need them.
Every now and then I see this crap here. And people even engage into discussion. This is ridiculous.
I wouldn't call it low effort ... seems to be done over the course of months.
I agree it's absurd that those 4 commits started this morning projects that get huge hype and screaming fanboys, but I don't think this is that.
Is that what I'm doing wrong?
If I start a new project this morning, push about four commits to it, and bang it up on here, it'll go to the front page? I'd love for anything I've done to get that much traction ;-)
It also has to be cognitively stupid to understand - the least amount of knowledge or suppositions required.
I've found myself on the front page maybe 5 times... Someone else posted my stuff.
I find the algo game to be morally repugnant so I don't play it. I just build things and hope they're useful to the right audiences
Why is this an advantage? I have a GPU and I'd rather it was used. As-is, one of my CPU cores is pegged at 100% just rendering the landing page.
I get your point though, that the same ASCII rendering effect might be doable at much higher scale without pegging the CPU.
I'm also not sure why I love ASCII art so much. Maybe it's because it's such an abstract way to represent something, yet our brains make perfect sense of everything.
The shading is where it all comes to life.
What is the file size of one single model on average?
Is there a console version?