Vlad Khononov

So Anthropic published an article claiming Claude is accelerating AI development. The proof? Lines of code. Right in the middle of the article, they even admit it’s a BS productivity signal, but still say it “indicates an acceleration.”

Anyone who has ever worked on a big ball of mud knows exactly how many lines of code can be affected even by a tiny change. What do you think is really compounding there, value or technical debt?

"Lines of code is an imperfect measure, as it measures quantity over quality. So 8× lines of code/engineer/day in the second quarter of 2026 is almost certainly an overstatement of the true productivity gain. Nonetheless, it indicates an acceleration."

https://lnkd.in/dzWrEVKG

When Claude writes code, it signs the commit: Co-Authored-By: Claude. I'm paying for the model, and it still takes a credit line. Okay, fine.

But co-authorship is a claim about contribution. That logic works both ways. So what about all those people who involuntarily "contributed" the training data? You know, half the internet. Don't they deserve co-authorship on the models?