Also, aren’t LLMs RLHFd a lot with using tools like git and as such have a better time interacting with it than custom tools?
And does 8ms really matter when you're shunting bulk crap back and forth from the cloud?
It's not impressive, and it's obvious to anyone with more than a year or two of actual programming experience.
- The claim of "71% token savings" is misleading. You've already told us that git output is 7% of the "bash commands", so your token savings is really ~5% of bash command output. Also, the "200K tokens saved" refers the total saved across more than 3000 agent sessions. So it's really just ~60 tokens saved per session. That's a fraction of a fraction of a penny. Did you check your math here? Or just trust the model?
- You have not rebuilt git, you have replaced a small part of its porcelain CLI. Most of what makes git git is in the library code.
- Zig is a high-performance systems programming language that requires the programmer to manage memory manually. You've used it here to handle command line options (and yes, to call into libgit). That is overkill, and that matters, because:
- The performance difference (e.g. 8ms vs 16ms) might be real, but it still doesn't matter at all. For one, there's no way you yourself could tell the difference. The slower time is still a single frame of 60fps. For another, this is not a hot path. These git commands - however fast - are swallowed up by the time it takes the agent to do inference. There's no question that inference itself will take orders of magnitude more time than a 16ms shell command.
"I" create stuff all the time with AI Agents but am real uncomfortable claiming ownership over them. Others don't seem to have this problem though so /shrug
p.s. - in this case the commits are claude commits, even if they tell it not attribute itself you can tell because good commit messages were incredibly rare (even my own) until the last year or so when they started to look like entire pull requests
I'm comfortable calling that building something. If you're not, that's fine, but the distinction between 'prompted an AI' and 'designed and validated a system using AI tooling' is important.
I think if the answer to "could I do this again without claude" is no then it is difficult to claim ownership.
If you're just adding endpoints to some web project and doing feature work then whatever, if you are "rewriting tree sitter in rust" which a lot of these posts seem to be I think it deserves some skepticism.
They often do! Of course the artist has creative liberty to make it work, similar to how LLM's will deviate from the spec.
Was your automated test suite also AI generated?
You probably could have avoided all criticism by simply writing the article yourself instead of publishing raw LLM output. If someone isn't willing to write about a project they made, it's usually an indicator that they spent an equal amount of effort on the code as well.
And why did you make a commit to remove em dashes? That seems odd.
The agent writes the code, I designed the system, wrote the spec, and validated the output. Perhaps not the way we've built things in the past, but didn't feel all that different to me other than having more time to work on other things while it was running the feedback loop on the implementation