(Technically not "makes", but I always feel like it's better for both sides to understand each other more completely in order to have a more fruitful debate)

Maybe this is one of the better times to encourage "literate programming"? If the majority of the source is detailed prose comments instead of "code", you would be able to tell. I strongly believe that if a new project is interesting enough for someone to be reading the source of a literate codebase, the prose that goes with it will be distinct enough that the first publisher would necessarily have to be human.

The project is quite transparent about it, saying it was "proudly vibecoded". The entire "not sure what was hallucinated" narrative seems stuck in 2025.

Some friends of mine play old games that are on community life support with official servers having been shutdown years ago. I sometimes support them when they have some tech issues and whenever I stumble upon documentation of these projects being spread over forums and vintage 2010 era gaming portal websites I'm glad that we have AI now.

Oh, I didn't spot that in the submission, is it behind links? I read a few paragraphs of the description and left because it didn't seem organic. My bad.

Nothing has changed in that respect since 2025, despite the many claims to the contrary. LLMs still hallucinate quite regularly.

The issue with using AI as a tool to build software is that the inspection step is not required. I'm not sure an AI-generated description is a sign of bad inspection processes. I think maybe in the case of a game mod, the description is not as important as it would be for some software that someone is selling.

I guess my point is that quality can't be assessed merely by whether something was built with AI. A trustworthy team will have carried out inspections along the way. The question is how can we know that?

Wrong. Lack of inspection is a process issue symptom, not an AI issue symptom.