If Claude can produce a working Z80 emulator from documentation alone, it means the model has internalized enough about processor architecture, instruction sets, and timing behavior to reconstruct a functional implementation. That's qualitatively different from pattern-matching on existing emulator code.
From antirez's writing what comes through is that the value isn't "AI wrote my code" — it's that AI made it practical to attempt a project that would have been a multi-week time investment as a weekend experiment. The bottleneck for many side projects isn't knowledge or skill, it's calendar time. Compressing that changes what's worth attempting.
Because that is exceptionally unlikely.
Maybe a more sensible challenge would be to describe a system that hasn't previously been emulated before (or had an emulator source released publicly as far as you can tell from the internet) and then try it.
For fun, try using obscure CPUs giving it the same level of specification as you needed for this, or even try an imagined Z80-like but swapping the order of the bits in the encodings and different orderings for the ALU instructions and see how it manages it.
Probably bonus points for telling it that you're emulating the well known ZX Spectrum and then describe something entire different and see whether it just treats that name as an arbitrary label, or whether it significantly influences its code generation.
But you're right of course, instruction decoding is a relatively small portion of a CPU that the differences would be quite limited if all the other details remained the same. That's why a completely hypothetical system is better.
As HN likes to say, only a amateur vibe-coder could believe this.
Essentially they can't do clean room anything!
You might as well hire the entire former mid level of a businesses programming team and claim it's clean room work
https://www.itprotoday.com/server-virtualization/windows-nt-...
rjh29•1h ago