Its so darn funny that the parent post says that they couldn't take this seriously because they think it was created by lovable (an AI vibe coded) thing

And well it turns out that the author hasn't used AI.

And the next comment I see is yours which "suggest" him to use "AI" for "refining"

This felt so weird on why are you suggesting him AI when the gp accused him of using AI in the first place as an almost deregotary term when he in fact didn't use it, like huh???

▲

c0balt 2 days ago | parent [-]

I looked at the source code because I was interested in what template/backend was used and the header contains a `<meta name="twitter:site" content="@lovable_dev" />`. As far as I know this is an artifact from lovable.dev, a generative AI tool for website vibe coding, and this does link to lovables twitter account.

Note: the website has been updated since my original comment, notably the points on layout/design have been mostly fixed. The lovable tag has stayed through both iterations.

	▲	Imustaskforhelp a day ago \| parent [-]
		very interesting find. That tarnishes a lot of reputation that it has. Man wants to crowdfund AI models to create open source AI models He should've instead shared the prompt that he entered into lovable instead. Makes a shit ton of sense now. Okayyyy wtf man, I won't really ever have the guts to push cheap AI slop like lovable directly to HN. I am okay with claude code / gemini / heck chatgpt or deepseek etc. but lovable etc. just makes it feel as if the person writing it doesn't even know how to read code or be comfortable with code itself, let alone writing the code.