Its kind of sad that the first thing in the repo is a mention that no human was involved in the programming.

Total "Damn if I do, damn if I don't" situation . I put a similar disclaimer on my AI stuff too. It would be much easier if they didn't mention it. But if they're like me, they want to give people the means for an informed decision. We can respect that and move on. Do we even know if actual big software companies aren't doing it?

Would author be able to do it otherwise? Is particular tool choice making result worse?

Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify…

"LLMs are amazing, I'm so much more productive now"

"oh yeah? Show me what you made, you can't, nobody can, it's all just AI psychosis"

"I made a pixel perfect Office document viewer"

"well... I wish you hadn't"

Would this project exist otherwise? i doubt it

I'm fine with that, even as someone who hates AI.

which means it probably gets all the halucinated assets correctly and any real world documents wrong.

Still, looks pretty; if it actually has proper testing, could close the gap. Code not being the hard part is a major impediment to good software coming out of these things.