This is a week-old repo with a 163,000-line initial commit, and the test repo that init was dumped in from is filled with hundreds of claude/codex co-author commits. Regardless of whether it's to hide the ai co-authoring, it's shady to obscure a repo's initial work like that.

I could be wrong, of course, but this smells like yet another overambitious ai-slop project that'll get abandoned in a month.

Yeaaah not to mention Immich already exists and is proven software.

What immich, ente, and the others weren't enough? Had to still vibe code your own?

And I'm saying this as someone who enjoys vibe coding a few projects. I'm not against it. But it's arrogance to assume you can vibe code something better than proven OSS alternatives

I didn't make it, but I don't see why people get upset that there are more of these projects out there. Something existing certainly never stopped people from making their own before either.

Making your own and creating it is great. Maintaining it for years its great. Its why there is so much respect for other projects. You can see the months and years of dedication right in the git history.

Vibe coding something and trying to be on par with the other projects is hubris. It's assuming you can do a better job than the groups and maintainers with an AI tool. Then to make it worse, it will probably never be updated or maintained. That's why I and I assume others dislike it. It's minimal effort with the arrogance on top.

Like I said. I enjoy vibe coding things. I've done a few. However I don't go and pitch them as alternatives to well known OSS projects, because I know my vibe coding could never compare.

Again, I don't really see the difference here. Whether the authors continue to maintain the project long or not has little to do with what tools were used to build the project. And calling anything where LLMs are used for development vibecoding is just silly to be honest. There's a huge variation in quality of code both in hand written code and that where LLMs are used. What you should be looking at in both cases is how much usage project gets, how good the tests are, whether authors built useful things before, and so on.

If a project is useful then I really don't care how it's coded. Existing projects are in no way diminished by the fact that this project exists.

Correct, and again, I'm someone who uses AI, I'm not one of the ones who are purely against it. The definition what what I've both done and seen:

• Using LLMs to code - fine. It's a tool, use it as you're saying. This is not what I'm talking about.
• Using LLMs to vomit out all of your code into one commit is vibecoding. It's clearly vibecoding when there weren't even multiple commits. No trial and error, no refinement, just one giant dump.

I do care how it's coded because it shows how well it will be maintained into the future. If someone uses LLMs over months to build something it will probably be maintained. If someone vomited out all of that code in one vibecoded session, it's very likely they'll be bored and in a month it'll be abandoned. That's what I'm looking at, because tests can be automated now.

Maybe I'll be wrong and in a month they'll have committed hundreds of times and are trying to mature it. I have no evidence of that though, so there is no reason I'd risk trying it out.

Cooks want to cook alone.

Worthless projects dillute valuable projects.

Imagine there being 100 photo projects like this.

One of them is immich. You are new and have no experience. How would you decide which one to install?

I don't think you're in the wrong to say that code nobody has reviewed has not proven safe, and a brand new project (of any kind) is not proven reliable. A brand new big project that's purely vibe coded is every red flag of unsafe and unsustainable.

The exact same way you decide now. You go look at the projects, see which ones have the features you want, then you tend to look at how many users the projects have and how mature they are, and then pick one based on that. Don't pretend that some thing changed here all of a sudden.

Using LLMs to vomit out all of your code into one commit is vibecoding. It’s clearly vibecoding when there weren’t even multiple commits. No trial and error, no refinement, just one giant dump.

Yeah, I completely agree there. Just like with regular coding, you have to go slowly, implement functionality in small focused chunks, review, and iterate.

And I'd also wait and see whether the project continues to be maintained before considering it. I just posted it because I thought it was neat, and might be worth watching to see how it develops, not that I'd use it over a more mature option at the moment.

I think we're actually in complete agreement here.

Thank you so much for highlighting a hypothetical problem which only exists in your head. Seems like screeching about anything LLM related has now become the entire identity for some people. Really should find a new hobby.

I think so too. Maybe it will turn out fine, maybe not. Personally I've been looking at git histories and waiting a month or so before getting excited, just to see if it will pan out.

Yup, a month is a good first checkpoint for a project. People tend to get really excited early on, but then they either get bored and move on, or start running into some hard problems they didn't anticipate. If somebody can work on a project for a month in sustained fashion, there's good chance they're actually using it themselves and will have the motivation to keep going.

Ah yes, automation is anti-labor you are very intelligent.

Automation is very obviously not inherently anti-labor. The way automation is used under capitalism is, but I didn't really expect any deep intellectual insights from you.

First of all, that's obviously false. Second of all, go look at unemployment rates in USSR. You literally have no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here. However, even your whole premise is insane. We shouldn't strive to do work for the sake of work. Automating toil away so people can spend their lives in a self directed fashion is unarguably a good thing. You're just arguing for having what David Graeber called bullshit jobs here.

I guess everything is a joke to a clown.

thank you for taking your valuable time away from huffing gas to share your insights with the world little dronie