Jesus H Christ, this is a new, innovative language by the guy who created the Lobster language (which pioneered compile-time refcounting), and six people have flagged it as spam?
This behavior is rage-inducing. If something was created with AI, suggest the ‘vibecoding’ tag if you must. Maliciously flagging as spam because you don’t like AI is antisocial. Stop doing it.
Flagging it as spam is not malicious, it's following a reasonable read of the flagging guidelines.
Spam which should be used for content that either is designed to promote a commercial service or for content that is created without meaningful human authorship.
Emphasis mine. It's a pretty straightforward read to go from "produced almost entirely with AI" to "without meaningful human authorship". I didn't flag this one, but it makes sense to me, given that wording, why people did.
Then a link to a human explanation of the insight behind it would've been a stronger post, here, IMO. A link to a repo that says it was "produced almost entirely with AI" is flying really close to the literal wording of that guideline on the about page.
That's pretty cool. (Though stating something on Twitter is like stating something on MySpace as far as I'm concerned these days.)
A link to a human-written spec probably wouldn't have gotten flagged the same way that a link to a repository claiming that it was produced almost entirely with AI did. I'd suggest that a link to the human-written spec would be a better choice for sharing here.
With all due respect, that’s pure BS. While the implementation was produced by AI, the programming language was very much a human invention. Saying “Oh, it’s a link to a repo so it’s really all about the code” is just sophistry. The README and tutorial docs are very interesting — honestly this is the weirdest new language I’ve seen in years, and while I’m not sure I’d enjoy writing code in it, the ideas are fascinating.
The only way you can claim this is not valuable content, even by lobsters rules, is by putting your hands over your eyes and refusing to read the content of the page. If you’re going to those lengths, just take the next step and skip it completely without fucking things up for people who do care.
The README seemed (and still seems, honestly) generated to me too. After slogging through it, I didn't bother with the tutorial.
I don't see how my comment fucks things up for people who do care; I didn't flag or even suggest anything. I just pointed out the same thing the README pointed out about the repo and said why I thought some people might look at that next to the guidelines and flag it.
And I only did that because I thought the idea was interesting enough that I'd pop over to the comments to see if anyone had linked some human commentary about it. While I'm thoroughly disinterested in spending much time with an LLM implementation, a human-written description of then principles at play here would be quite interesting to me.
But I only found people bitching about the fact that the story had been flagged.
It's not my job as submitter to explain it, but its core innovation is that there are any number of independent data stacks, automatically managed by the compiler based on static analysis of the program.
panekj | a day ago
[OP] manuel | a day ago
Yes, without AI this interesting advancement in PLT would not exist.
snej | a day ago
Jesus H Christ, this is a new, innovative language by the guy who created the Lobster language (which pioneered compile-time refcounting), and six people have flagged it as spam?
This behavior is rage-inducing. If something was created with AI, suggest the ‘vibecoding’ tag if you must. Maliciously flagging as spam because you don’t like AI is antisocial. Stop doing it.
hoistbypetard | a day ago
Flagging it as spam is not malicious, it's following a reasonable read of the flagging guidelines.
Emphasis mine. It's a pretty straightforward read to go from "produced almost entirely with AI" to "without meaningful human authorship". I didn't flag this one, but it makes sense to me, given that wording, why people did.
[OP] manuel | a day ago
No, a human came up with the novel insight behind this language.
hoistbypetard | a day ago
Then a link to a human explanation of the insight behind it would've been a stronger post, here, IMO. A link to a repo that says it was "produced almost entirely with AI" is flying really close to the literal wording of that guideline on the about page.
dataangel | a day ago
The author has stated on Twitter that they wrote the spec years ago.
hoistbypetard | a day ago
That's pretty cool. (Though stating something on Twitter is like stating something on MySpace as far as I'm concerned these days.)
A link to a human-written spec probably wouldn't have gotten flagged the same way that a link to a repository claiming that it was produced almost entirely with AI did. I'd suggest that a link to the human-written spec would be a better choice for sharing here.
snej | 21 hours ago
With all due respect, that’s pure BS. While the implementation was produced by AI, the programming language was very much a human invention. Saying “Oh, it’s a link to a repo so it’s really all about the code” is just sophistry. The README and tutorial docs are very interesting — honestly this is the weirdest new language I’ve seen in years, and while I’m not sure I’d enjoy writing code in it, the ideas are fascinating.
The only way you can claim this is not valuable content, even by lobsters rules, is by putting your hands over your eyes and refusing to read the content of the page. If you’re going to those lengths, just take the next step and skip it completely without fucking things up for people who do care.
hoistbypetard | 21 hours ago
The README seemed (and still seems, honestly) generated to me too. After slogging through it, I didn't bother with the tutorial.
I don't see how my comment fucks things up for people who do care; I didn't flag or even suggest anything. I just pointed out the same thing the README pointed out about the repo and said why I thought some people might look at that next to the guidelines and flag it.
And I only did that because I thought the idea was interesting enough that I'd pop over to the comments to see if anyone had linked some human commentary about it. While I'm thoroughly disinterested in spending much time with an LLM implementation, a human-written description of then principles at play here would be quite interesting to me.
But I only found people bitching about the fact that the story had been flagged.
landon | 19 hours ago
I wish we could differentiate English written by AI and English written by a human about a codebase written by an AI.
iliaf | 16 hours ago
Not affiliated and not promoting. But seemed appropriate: https://github.com/arslanr-com/writehuman
Surprisingly, doesn't use AI.
[OP] manuel | a day ago
pyfisch | a day ago
[OP] manuel | a day ago
It's not my job as submitter to explain it, but its core innovation is that there are any number of independent data stacks, automatically managed by the compiler based on static analysis of the program.
rs86 | a day ago
So you are submitting content you don’t even understand.
pushcx | a day ago
It is entirely normal and acceptable to learn things here, yes.