not to mention that there are only three contributors and #2 is claude, although that might be because they just committed a bunch of previously-untracked code at once, i don't care to check.

I'm not the first to say that AI is enabling a fracturing of these projects, though. There's this, and also "ArtCraft" I think, which seem to be trying the exact same thing. I wonder if there is still a place in the AI era for separate projects to merge efforts and processes to accelerate the development of quality clones.

And I don't want to hear "it's alpha" and "it'll improve over time". The very foundation it is built on is a near zero understanding of the domain.

This is exactly the same as all the sudden Lightroom and Photoshop replacements.

This certainly checks that box!

[0] https://www.neowin.net/news/denmark-has-abandoned-plans-to-d...

https://github.com/morluto/rea

The reality of launching a good product with AI is that the coding is very fast, but the QC, the documentation, the refinement and user testing, isn't all that much faster, if you care about it being good.

This is a mountain of code, full of bugs and weirdness that users will be the first to find, because nobody else is looking at it.

My process for building with AI is "intense weekend of vibe coding" and then several times that time spent on refinement and testing that comes from actually using the software a lot. A couple of devs can't be responsible for every major application.

With AI, you can make anything you want, but you can't make everything.