> The same argument applies to open source itself. Why use someone's project when you can just have the robot write your own

Because it takes hours/months/years of accumulated design decisions to get a great open source project. Something an AI agent can only approximate the surface of, unless you’re ready to spend a lot of time on it

> Why use someone's project when you can just have the robot write your own?

I've been thinking about this a bunch recently, and I've realized that the thing I value most in software now isn't robust tests or thorough documentation - an LLM can spit those out in a few minutes. It's usage. I want to use software which other people have used before me. I want them to have encountered the bugs and sharp edges and sanded them down.

I remember hearing the same arguments in the early 2010s, when the "3D printing revolution" was just around the corner. Why would anyone buy anything anymore if you can download a model and print it in the privacy of your home? And make it infinitely customizable?

The whole point of having a civilization is that most things in life can be made someone else's problem and you can focus on doing one thing well. If I'm a dentist or if I run a muffler shop, there are only so many hours in a day, so I'd probably rather pay a SaaS vendor than learn vibecoding and then be stuck supervising a weird, high-maintenance underling that may or may not build me the app with the features I need (and that I might not be able to articulate clearly). There are exceptions, but they're just that, exceptions. If a vendor is reasonable and makes a competent product, I'll gladly pay.

The same goes for open source... even if an LLM could reliably create a brand new operating system from scratch, would I really want it to? I don't want to maintain an OS. I don't want to be in charge of someone who maintains an OS. I don't necessarily trust myself to have a coherent vision for an OS in the first place!

That only holds true for the smallest tier of open source projects. Past a certain point of complexity, it's unlikely you can expect the robot to read your mind well enough to provide something of high quality and 'outstanding for just you'.

The Zig project is certainly far beyond such capability.

LLM access is not yet universally available. There are those who can't exactly afford it. And there are also those with access but there are occasional or perennial issues, like Claude outages and general degraded performance over time. For example couple of months ago when I just started using Claude, I was easily making good progress on multiple projects within a week. Nowadays I'm hardly getting through much of anything as most of the time Claude is just showing spinners, and it also feels like the code quality has taken a nosedive.

I've been seeing a drop in PRs against my repositories. I have a couple of repositories with around a hundred stars. Nothing spectacular but they were getting occasional PRs until last year. This year I've had almost none so far. My theory is that LLMs prefer sticking to mainstream projects. And since lots of developers are now leaning heavily on LLMs, they are biased to ignoring most of what I provide.

And you indeed get a lot of wheel reinvention by LLMs because that is now cheap to do. So rather than using some obscure thing on Github (like my stuff), it's easier to just generate what you need. I've noticed this with my own choices in dependencies as well. I tend to just go with what the LLM suggests unless I have a very good reason not to.

Most people don’t have the ability to read code well enough to determine if an LLM output is good or not. And most people don’t have subscriptions to models that can develop non-trivial programs…

Maybe this will be a real problem in a couple years though.

I think this ignores the amount of work needed to make LLM contributions be of high quality. It's much less work than making pure human contribution, but it's definitely not zero.

So centralizing that common work is a benefit of open-source just as much with LLMs as it was before.

LLMs really can't do as much as you people think they can.

>> Whereas earlier you had to use something that was mass produced to be satisfactory for everyone

As someone who recently started using OpenSCAD for a project I find this attitude quite irritating. You certainly did not "have to" use popular tools.

The OpenSCAD example is particularly illuminating because it's fussy and frustrating and clearly tuned towards a few specific maintainers; there's a ton of things I'd like changed. But I would never trust an LLM to do it! "Oh the output looks fine, cool" is not enough for a CAD program. "Oh, there are a lot of tests, cool" great, I have no idea what a thorough CAD test suite looks like. I would be a reckless idiot if I asked Claude to make me a custom SCAD program... unless I put in a counterproductive amount of work. So I'm fine with OpenSCAD.

I am also sincerely baffled as to how this stimulates the "labor economy." The most obvious objection is that Anthropic seems to be the only party here getting any form of economic benefit: the open-source maintainers are just plain screwed unless they compromise quality for productivity, and the LLM users are trading high-quality tooling built by people who understand the problem for shitty tooling built by a robot, in exchange for uncompensated labor. It only stimulates the "labor economy" in a Bizarro Keynesian sense, digging up glass bottles that someone forgot to put the money in.

I have seen at least 4 completely busted vibe-coded Rust SQLite clones in the last three months, happily used by people who think they don't need to worry their pretty little heads with routine matters like database design. It's a solved problem and Claude is on the case! In fact unlike those stooopid human SQLIte developers, Claude made it multithreaded! So fucking depressing.

> Why use someone's project when you can just have the robot write your own?

Because it is incredibly expensive to write a replacement for semi-complex software? Good luck asking frontier models to write a replacement for Zig, Docker, VSCode, etc.

> Why use someone's project when you can just have the robot write your own?

Iff it is doable, then it would be worth considering it as alternative.

> It also stimulates the labor economy, because you have lots of people everywhere reinventing open source projects with their LLMs.

not sure what you mean by that