alt Hacker NewsIn my opinion, for open-source projects, scoring the project's AI sloppiness based on the timeline of commits would be a good indicator. If it's completed within a few days, it should require more thorough human review. On the other hand, if the project has been active for a while and received contributions spread throughout that timeline, I think that would indicate accumulated effort (human and/or AI) and higher quality.
Replies
Show HN has never been restricted to open source projects and it would be weird to make the criteria more restrictive for open source than closed source work.
I thought so too, untill I looked for 1-point Show HN posts with a repo with a long commit history. Some of these are really cool (see my article), but others were not compelling at all, at least to me.
Eh IMO any metric like this can be gamed. My project that reached hn front page was coded in a short time (and yes some ai was used), but otoh I think it was something that showed hey you can do this really interesting thing (in my case vlm based indoor location).
Also its not uncommon for weekend projects to be done in a shprt span with just a "first commit" message dump even pre-AI.
> In my opinion, for open-source projects, scoring the project's AI sloppiness based on the timeline of commits would be a good indicator.
You can’t necessarily judge by timeline. I’ve always developed my projects privately and then squashed to one initial public commit. I’ve got a private repo now with thousands of commits developed over years and I still intend to squash.