Isn’t that no different than the millions of open source projects that have few authors, little interest and are abandoned for the next shiny thing? At least in my mind with the current state of LLMs, if there is an open source project that you want to update for yourself, you should be able to do that pretty easily.
Comment on Most slopcode projects are abandoned and deleted within months of release
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 5 days ago
This is the main reason why vibe coding, even if it produces good code, is still a major problem. It encourages people with the goal of making software, but without the actual will and motivation to keep supporting that software to pump out software and publish it.
It’s like all the faceless AI-automated YouTube channels we have now. It’s not that these people had no way of doing it before, it’s just that it’s easy and might make them some money, or make them feel like they accomplished something until they get bored and move on.
There’s something to be said for convenient and easy to use things, but they’re a double edged sword, because they also directly target people with the least emotional investment to use them, as a side effect of that convenience.
GalacticRobot@lemmy.world 5 days ago
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 5 days ago
Isn’t that no different than the millions of open source projects that have few authors, little interest and are abandoned for the next shiny thing?
The end result isn’t inherently different, but the basis is.
Someone who programs a FOSS project with their own programming skill is, by definition, more invested, and more willing to spend time making that project exist. Someone who is mostly just willing to tell the LLM to do it for them is, by definition, less invested in the project.
It is more likely that someone less invested in a project will abandon it.
At least in my mind with the current state of LLMs, if there is an open source project that you want to update for yourself, you should be able to do that pretty easily.
Sure, that’s possible, but the main concern is that most people either don’t have access to more capable models (which will otherwise require them spending money for their software to keep getting things like security patches, vs projects that have maintainers that are more invested in them that aren’t abandoned in the first place which are effectively free unless you choose to donate), and you get forks in development path. It might fit one user’s goals, but now you have, say, 100 people who all tried reviving abandonware with their own LLMs, all with different features, security, import/export mechanisms, etc.
That’s not to say it’s bad that people can use LLMs to “revive” abandonware, but I don’t think we should be encouraging people to create and publish software that’s highly likely to be abandoned in the first place.
brainwashed@feddit.org 5 days ago
TBH, most software will never be used my many so needs no support. Also, I think lack of long-term support is not the same kind of problem. It used to be any more. Back in the day when the original author dropped support it was a major investment to get someone else up to speed. Now fixes and enhancements can be done by LLMs as well, given a somehwat competent software developer.
But in general: The newer the project and the more bells and whistles it has, the less I personally would want to make it an essential piece of my workflow.