Skip to main content

max / makenotwork

Remove test/LOC counts from generative-AI policy page Counts drift and read as filler metrics; describe quality qualitatively instead. Real numbers were higher than claimed, so this is presentation, not accuracy. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Author: Max Johnson <me@maxj.phd> · 2026-06-08 17:02 UTC
Commit: 01badaa4cff7e9b18cd4499ab08982595a45ac4c
Parent: 59fc473
1 file changed, +2 insertions, -2 deletions
@@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ We will never build generative AI tools or features into the product. No AI writ
105 105
106 106 **Platform development** uses LLM-assisted tooling openly. LLMs reduce costs and let a solo developer ship features at a pace that would otherwise require a team. This is transparent in our commit history.
107 107
108 - The quality bar is non-negotiable: 1,900+ tests, property-based testing, mutation testing with a 99%+ kill rate, and regular code audits. LLM-generated code is held to the same standard as hand-written code. If it doesn't meet that bar, it gets rewritten until it does.
108 + The quality bar is non-negotiable: a comprehensive automated test suite, property-based testing, mutation testing, and regular code audits. LLM-generated code is held to the same standard as hand-written code. If it doesn't meet that bar, it gets rewritten until it does.
109 109
110 110 There is a meaningful difference between using these tools to build infrastructure and selling their output as creative work. Our tier system reflects that distinction.
111 111
112 112 A note from the founder:
113 113
114 - > The honest truth is that I would prefer not to use these tools. In my non-legal opinion, they are unethically built. They are also, frankly, mind-numbingly boring. At the same time, they allow a one-person team to build and maintain five products, a server with 80,000 lines of Rust, and comprehensive documentation, all without outside funding. As the codebase grows, their usefulness diminishes in favor of a more hands-on approach as the focus moves from scaffolding to testing and refinement. We will always be honest about what we use on our end. I will always try to be honest about how I feel about those tools. And as always, we would love to someday replace them with tools that we make or that our community makes: tools that are well-built, ethical, and that I can feel good about using.
114 + > The honest truth is that I would prefer not to use these tools. In my non-legal opinion, they are unethically built. They are also, frankly, mind-numbingly boring. At the same time, they allow a one-person team to build and maintain five products, a substantial server codebase, and comprehensive documentation, all without outside funding. As the codebase grows, their usefulness diminishes in favor of a more hands-on approach as the focus moves from scaffolding to testing and refinement. We will always be honest about what we use on our end. I will always try to be honest about how I feel about those tools. And as always, we would love to someday replace them with tools that we make or that our community makes: tools that are well-built, ethical, and that I can feel good about using.
115 115 >
116 116 > \- Max
117 117