Toggling the stars shows 50b lines of code created across all projects, only 5b on projects with 2+ stars since Claude Code launch. Kind of eye opening where these Claude Code tokens are going.
I mean, most of the code that I have written to Github with normal human intelligence also goes to Github repos will less than two stars. They're usually repos that I create and no one else touches.
I have many GH repos, most have no stars. Probably because most of what I write is not very useful to other people due to quality or use case. I would say this is true of most fully human-created repos on GitHub.
At a glance this may read as “most of this code isn’t valuable to others” but reality is probably complected with “this type of code is reducing the need for shared libraries”.
OP. I'm not a confident SQL user so encourage someone to double check this. From what I can tell have been 2.21x10^12 additions on GitHub in total, 6.36x10^11 of which are in repos with 2+ stars. That's about 29%. People earlier were comparing the star distribution of repos which is not really what this is about - it is about OUTPUT, as measured by additions.
Interestingly, there are 21.37b commits in GitHub, implying 104 additions per commit. Per the dashboard, Claude is linked to 20.81m commits and 50.44b additions - or 2,424 additions/commit. So additions for Claude-linked repos is higher, and it's actually higher for repos with 0-1 stars (2,568 additions/commit for Claude, 91 for all GitHub). None of this is a smoking gun but aligns with the intuition that Claude is producing enormous amounts of code. TBD whether it is 'adding value'.
Maybe because people are using claude to to write code for themselves, to scratch their own itch, and upload it to the world just because. The value of code can't be measured in star counts.
Did we democratise software engineering? Seriously, I created a bunch of tools that I find useful without the bloated framework issues that are present in software nowadays. Jokes on me if something does not work.
Even if that stat were compared directly to the base rate (human output), it could easily be explained by correlating strongly with Claude usage skewing towards new repos.
Do people really put weight in stars? It seems completely unrelated to anything but, well, popularity. Even when I modify other peoples' code I fork to a private repo and maintain my changes separately, and I'm fairly certain I have never starred a repo.
The HN headline is at least misleading, because I suspect a majority of Claude usage is at the enterprise level (deep pockets), which goes to private GitHub repos.
Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub.
Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits.
I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm unsure how they'll evolve.
How long does it normally take projects to get stars though? You're not going to have a project with 100+ stars overnight or even within a month, you have to promote the project?
I cannot understate how much of an improvement that is. If I had a dollar for all the shit I made myself, the old fashioned way, that got 0 attention at all? I'd have enough for a month or two of claude
The idea with Claude writing code for most part is that everyone can write software that they need. Software for the audience of one. GitHub is just a place for them to live beyond my computer.
82 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 70.3 ms ] threadCame across this from this ShowHN post yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47501348
What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.
Interestingly, there are 21.37b commits in GitHub, implying 104 additions per commit. Per the dashboard, Claude is linked to 20.81m commits and 50.44b additions - or 2,424 additions/commit. So additions for Claude-linked repos is higher, and it's actually higher for repos with 0-1 stars (2,568 additions/commit for Claude, 91 for all GitHub). None of this is a smoking gun but aligns with the intuition that Claude is producing enormous amounts of code. TBD whether it is 'adding value'.
Would be appreciative of anyone who verifies/invalidates this. https://play.clickhouse.com/ https://ghe.clickhouse.tech/#clickhouse-demo-access
At 2mo old - nearly a 1GB repo, 24M loc, 52K commits
https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore
Polished site:https://broadwayscorecard.com/
Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits.
I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm unsure how they'll evolve.
The idea with Claude writing code for most part is that everyone can write software that they need. Software for the audience of one. GitHub is just a place for them to live beyond my computer.
Why will I want to promote it or get stars?