Did you build it, though, or did Claude code it?

Built with Claude by the looks of things. Not sure if Claude was used to generate the boilerplate and whether the dev reviewed it after or whether Claude did all of it, but definitely Claude was used for some of it. I recognise the coding style that Claude outputs and the bugs that it implements that will cause TypeErrors if not handled.

FWIW, I’m not against using AI as an assistant for coding (I do it too, using Claude and Vercel as assistants) just as long as the code is reviewed and understood in full by the dev before publishing.

FWIW, I’m not against using AI as an assistant for coding (I do it too, using Claude and Vercel as assistants) just as long as the code is reviewed and understood in full* by the dev before publishing. *my emphasis

A very sane take. I do wish devs would fully disclose this on their github or other. That way, if the project is seasoned, well starred, et al, and the dev used AI as an assistant, then the user gets to decide. Given all the criteria are met, I would deploy it.

I will say that I have observed what seems like a pretty decent up tick in selfhosted apps, and I would be willing to bet a goodly amount of them have at the very least, used AI in some capacity, if not most/all code. I don’t have any solid evidence to back that up but it just seems that way to me.

I think the problem is a cyclical one. Some devs are afraid to admit that they used AI to help them code because there’s so much hatred towards using AI to code. But the hatred only grows because some devs are not disclosing that they’ve had help from AI to code and it seems like they’re hiding something which then builds distrust. And of course, that’s not helped by the influx of slop too where an AI has been used and the code has not been reviewed and understood before its released.