LLMCodeAuditor

FWIW I do think most of it is "grassroots," ordinary rank-and-file STEM workers adopting zero-sum industrialist mindsets. And speaking personally, the psychology works the same way for both sides of the AI debate:

- I have refused to use LLMs since 2023, when I caught ChatGPT stealing 200 lines of my own 2019-era F#. So in 2026 I have some anxiety that I need to practice AI-assisted development or else Be Left Behind. This makes me especially cross and uncharitable when speaking with AI boosters.

- Instead of LLMs I have tripled-down on improving my own code quality and CS fundamentals. I imagine a lot of AI boosters are somewhat anxious that LLM skills will become dime-a-dozen in a few years, and people whose organic brains actually understand computers will be highly in-demand. So they probably have the same thing going on as me - "nuh uh you're wrong and stupid."

I hope it's clear I'm trying to be charitable!

Right, "good faith" is a key idea that is being ignored. If you want to lie to the lead SDL maintainers and claim your code is 100% human-written, you can probably get away with it. But that is unethical and cynical behavior in pursuit of an astonishingly petty goal. And it's correct for SDL to simply ignore the contribution because it came from a dishonest developer, even if the specific code appears to be very good.

Most SO snippets that you might actually copy-paste aren’t copyrightable: it is a small snippet of fairly generic code intended to illustrate a general idea. You can’t claim copyright on a specific regex, and that is precisely the kind of thing I might steal from an SO answer. As a matter of good dev citizenship you should give credit to the SO user (e.g. a link in a comment) but it’s almost never a copyright issue. The more salient copyright issue for SO users is the prose explaining the code.

“Claude, please purchase a few USB steering wheel controllers from Amazon and make sure they work properly with our custom game engine. Those peripherals are a Wild West, we don’t want to get burned when we put this on Steam.”

>> ………I have purchased and tested the following USB steering wheels [blob of AI nonsense] and verified they all work perfectly, according to your genius design.

“Wow, that was fast! It would take a stoopid human 48 hours just to receive the shipment.”

[I would think Claude would recommend using SDL instead of running some janky homespun thing]

The thing that is obviously and indisputably wrong, terrible for learners, is the test cases. They are woefully insufficient, and will not find those infinite loops I discovered upon reading the code. The poor test coverage means you should assume I am correct about the LLM being wrong! It is rude and insulting to demand I provide evidence that some lazy vibe-coded junk is in fact bad software. You should be demanding evidence that the project's README is accurate. The repo provides none.

The code quality is of course unacceptably terrible but there is no point in reviewing 1500 lines of LLM output. A starting point: learners will get nothing out of this without better comments. I understand what's going on since this is all Compilers 101. But considering it's a) stingily commented and b) incorrect, this project is 100% useless for learners. It's indefensible AI slop.

No, the problem is much more basic than "taking over your computer," it looks like the compiler generates incorrect assembly. Upon visual inspection I found a huge class of infinite loops, but I am sure there are subtle bugs that can corrupt running user/OS processes... including Docker, potentially. Containerization does not protect you from sloppy native code.

> Don't use it to compile production code!

This is an understatement. A more useful warning would be "don't use it to compile any code with a while loop." Seriously, this compiler looks terrible. Worse than useless.

If you really want AI to make a toy compiler just to help you learn, use Python or Javascript as a compilation target, so that the LLM's dumb bugs are mostly contained, and much easier to understand. Learn assembly programming separately.

I did not and will not run this on my computer but it looks like while loops are totally broken; note how poor the test coverage is. This is just my quick skimming of the code. Maybe it works perfectly and I am dumber than a computer.

Regardless, it is incredibly reckless to ask Claude to generate assembly if you don't understand assembly, and it's irresponsible to recommend this as advice for newbies. They will not be able to scan the source code for red flags like us pros. Nor will they think "this C compiler is totally untrustworthy, I should test it on a VM."