> Yes, the code is generated. Yes, the docs are generated.

> I also wouldn't call this vibe coded either.

It's vibe-coded. Get over it.

> Yes, the code is generated. Yes, the docs are generated. I agree LLM copy is annoying and will rewrite them myself.

I find this kinda funny. Fix the obvious part, better not look at the code.

I would use the phrase "Responsible Use of Generative AI", from https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texte

> I agree LLM copy is annoying and will rewrite them myself.

Remember when people used to care about making a good first impression?

Don’t worry. Folks are entirely too concerned about the distinction between human made and LLM made. In a short handful of years, it will be incredibly rare to find something an LLM hasn’t been involved with

The official client is very annoying.

I rewrite docs myself on my own projects because they read as very LLMish, there's an intermediate stage which feels slightly less bad where I ask it to remove most of the comments, especially LLM signposting ones and then "rewrite any remaining comments and docs in a dry ukgov/gds style" which makes things slighyly less worse.

The fact than an app like this can be vibe-coded is actually mind-blowing. I'd love to see your prompt history here.

Should add a full page click through slop warning to each page on the site. Also give credit to the LLM that made it in the "Brought to you by" section at the bottom.

>Author here.

Not author. LLM manager, technical producer (if we're borrowing game development language), advanced AI user; not author. Authors are those whose code was used to train LLM(s) you were using while producing this fine piece of software. I'm saying this having neither positive nor negative emotions. Just clarifying.

One thing I like about Spotify is the recommendations. I like to do what i call “beat digging” which is basically exploring the platform for new artists and tracks?

Does this still have that?

I'm going to sound harsh here, but please don't take this as criticism of the effort, it's criticism of how it's being portrayed. The quality might for all intents be great and useful.

> But I built this for myself out of frustration with the official client

But you didn't build it. This is akin to me telling an intern to build me a widget and then claiming it was me who built it. Or a construction manager saying they built a skyscraper.

Yes, the intern and the construction crew needs guidance and management, but I can't then go to the management committee and claim ownership of the effort.

> I also wouldn't call this vibe coded either.

You didn't write any of the code or even the documentation for that matter. You guided a code generator that relied on you to guide high level decisions but then did all the implementation on it's own. That's vibe coding.

I'll pick a human-written monstrosity over any "lean" consloption out there any time of day.

Like I said in another thread, everything Claude (Code) writes sounds like it’s congratulating itself of how smart it is. While not actually being that smart.

I believe AI technical prose peaked with Opus 4.6. I still use it (mostly for that purpose) and I think it's legitimately great. I'm hoping they are able to reverse the trends that benchmaxxing and RLAIF have wrought on Claude's non-code output with the future models.

I use Claude daily and I have never heard it say 'Smoke Test' once.

Have a bit of food dropped into the MSG container. Now eat the whole container

What sucks is that clearly the author has prompted the model somehow to generate this text, and this prompt probably contains the actual meat that the model just "expanded on" while adding it's own fluff, and if the author just shared the actual verbatim prompt instead, the documentation would be 90% shorter but also 200% more "informative per character used".

Just share the prompt you used, regardless of how low quality or bad it is, rather than this word spaghetti of 100s of words saying basically nothing, such a waste.

It's a weird world where they put less time into writing that doc than you did reading it.

I prioritized shipping over carefully crafting docs. I thought nobody would read them and they'd rather enjoy the software. I was wrong. I'll rewrite them.

Not running code from someone who has so little self awareness that they publish documentation like this tbh.

Doesn't matter if it's open source.

I never thought ubiquitous human-written marketing wank was any better.

> The mythical "rm -rf" random LLM insertion is not a real threat. Every time I see stories about this kind of issue, it's almost always preceded by basically prompt poisoning.

It is real, typically happening when dumber models (haven't personally seen any of the SOTA ones on reasonable thinking/reasoning level do this) try to clean up stuff via bash and forget to assign a variable. Things like "rm -rf sessions/$id" without double-checking $id is actually defined, would do "rm -rf sessions/" and remove the entire directory. Add in more variables in a path like "rm -rf $HOME/projects/$user/$repo/$tmpdir" and the dumb models people think they can use for local coding, promptly removes a lot more than expected.

Not sure how people aren't already running these agents in an environment/sandbox where stuff like this wouldn't matter, locally or not, but some LLMs do truly accidentally delete stuff for people, without "prompt poisoning", I had it happen myself while testing Qwen3.8-27B (BF16) locally just a week or two ago, exactly as described above.

> This person doesn't owe you any work. He's providing a product for free

A product being free doesn’t make it exempt from criticism. It’s not about “owing” anybody work.

> and this is a reasonable enough description of the product.

It’s not a great idea to signal a lack of effort, nor is it wrong for users to pick up on that signal. This is the post-llm equivalent to spelling or grammatical errors.

> I'm pretty sure at this point hand-crafted code is more likely to contain security bugs.

LLMs produce code which is fairly ‘locally optimal’, so in good hands they can absolutely be used to build correct software. They also allow those with little to no experience* to cobble something together very quickly and easily while creating a ton of security holes. I think you might be underestimating how common the latter is.

* not to suggest this applies to the OP necessarily. Rather some extra wariness is necessary nowadays since the floor has been lowered so much.

Not OP but I don’t really care if it was or not. All I know is that I’ve been using the Spotify app 10+ years and it works well. I don’t know if this random app works, and if it hasn’t been supervised I doubt it does.

The official Spotify app has some skin in the game. Random dudes self promotion project, not so much.

If the last twenty years of horror movies have taught me anything it is that maybe you can't be a real player, but you can always wear their skin!

Icymi, "carving bots out of trees" is a wonderful and apposite autocorrect. There's layers to this thing, man!