Feels a bit nice to live not only with the disturbance caused by unpredictability of AI, but by unpredictability of QC too, refreshing

If it was 2020, it would be hard to imagine that after some hours/days you getting a visual representation of the leak with such detailed stats lol

I don't have a lot of experience with them but I would have thought static analysis tools circa 2020 would have managed it just fine.

The output wouldn't be anything nearly as good, comprehensive and informative as this website.

No tooling, no animation, no hidden features, no explanation of how things work upon clicking them.

But I'm glad to be proven wrong if you know a static analysis tool I can point to the repo and come up with comparable result.

How was this generated ? I'm quite sure "with ai/claude code" but what are the actual steps ?

For the animations specifically, it's using Motion (fka Framer Motion) Javascript library. If you describe some animations from the site to an LLM and ask it to use Framer motion, you get very similar results. The creator likely just prompted for a while until they were happy with the outcome.

Is there a reason to think it was done by an LLM?

AI-generated UIs, at least ones aimed at an engineering audience, have a very distinct appearance. They seem to always have the following attributes:

- Dark mode design with lots of colors

- Buttons that have vibrant, bright borders and duller backgrounds

- Excessive (IMO) usage of monospace fonts for stylistic reasons

None of this proves that it's AI (the other comments have covered that) but in my experience it's always correct.

It states "curation assisted by AI" at the bottom.

That doesn't mean the code in question was written by AI.

The author posted in this thread. It's AI.

You’re missing the point. It’s not a witch hunt, but rather a discussion on whether things are too quickly attributed to be AI generated.

That's one way to look at it but I don't think it was that deep.

The biggest reason would be: do you know a single developer who could have produced this in a couple of hours?

Yup, strange to see people still don’t understand LLMs massively speed up coding greenfield pet projects. Anytime you see a bee web app it’s better to assume AI use rather than not anymore.

I'm not familiar enough with this animation library to answer that. Someone could be very used to this type of website and just copy paste things they've done before.

What does Occam's razor say?

Regex for swearing detected, user needs to get more API tokens, he is very very pissed.

That's a bit funny to me, because the level of absurdity you get from reading something like that is insane, I have been using vim on a daily bases for more than 5 years now. One day thought about contributing to vim because was silly enough to believe that the tool shouldn't be that many lines of code, something doable, like in couple thousands, then found out its way way more than that and closer to half a mill, couldn't even dream of understanding anything, not close to be fluent enough to find RCEs.

> shouldn't be that many lines of code, something doable, like in couple thousands

If you believe that then you have hardly scratched the surface of what your editor is capable of doing.

My experience was worse than just frustrating verification - it cost me money twice.

I submitted my government-issued ID and bank statements multiple times. Each time rejected, no specific explanation why. After several rounds I gave up, assuming my developer account would at least stay dormant until I felt like trying again.

It didn't. Google deleted the account entirely. No warning, no refund of the €25 registration fee or whatever it costed. When I eventually wanted to publish again, I had to create a new account and pay again. The second time around they accepted my driving license - the same type of document category they had rejected before.

So the real cost of a bad verification experience isn't just time. If you give up and walk away, you lose your fee and start from zero. That's the part that stung, at least for me.