I had to flag this article for violating HN's policy against submitting things written by AI.
Which is a shame, because the premise is intriguing. But it's pretty rude to expect every one of us to sift through ten pages of AI tells to reverse engineer the prompts that hold the information the author wanted to convey. As the saying goes, "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?"
So I ask the Author: Please write this article for us using your own words, taking your own time to convey your thoughts. Submit it and let us read it.
I bet it will be better than this.
tonyedgecombe 10 hours ago [-]
I’m not sure which is worse, content written by AI or people complaining about content being written by AI.
yummybrainz 9 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure it's the former!
willismichael 5 hours ago [-]
No way, it's AI generated content complaining about AI generated content.
scratcheee 2 hours ago [-]
When it comes to fluff/slop/etc, worse can be measured by word count, so there’s your answer.
a-french-anon 12 hours ago [-]
Even more outrageous: there are two authors listed.
mikkolaakkonen 14 hours ago [-]
I totally agree, would love to read this "properly" !
overgard 1 days ago [-]
I feel like the AI labs have an embrace-extend-extinguish model here like Microsoft of the 90s. Train your models on all the open source code, then extinguish the ecosystem since open source libraries are essentially a competitor. (If there were no libraries you'd have to ask the AI to do everything!) Like, personally I think the reason why AI works as well as it does for typescript is because it's essentially gluing together a lot of open source code written by humans. The interesting functionality is mostly in those libraries. A developer that doesn't want to use AI can still be pretty productive within that context, but if the ecosystem is absolutely decimated..
sshine 1 days ago [-]
> extinguish the ecosystem since open source libraries are essentially a competitor. (If there were no libraries you'd have to ask the AI to do everything!)
That is neither the incentive of AI companies nor the truth.
Availability of Open Source where stealing and illegal relicensing is not being litigated, is a perfect ecosystem for AI to work in.
Maintainer exhaustion is totally a secondary effect, not intended. The maintainer economy was already not working out, AI amplified the asymmetry at play.
overgard 1 days ago [-]
As far as I can tell, Anthropic's entire goal is to extinguish software development as a profession. They're not exactly subtle. If they do that, I don't see how they wouldn't take out open source with it as a consequence. If nobody even looks at code why would anyone bother to publish a library, much less care about making it maintainable? Shit, if everybody is vibe coding how long before your "average" dev has no idea what a library even is or why you'd want one?
sshine 24 hours ago [-]
> Anthropic's entire goal is to extinguish software development as a profession
They’re killing “programmer”, not “code”.
> I don't see how they wouldn't take out open source with it as a consequence
An analogy: the automobile industry sought to make working horses redundant, not to go door-to-door and kill horses. Horses getting chopped was an indirect economic consequence.
> If nobody even looks at code why would anyone bother to publish a library, much less care about making it maintainable?
For the exact same reasons as before. Agentic programming still integrates well with the existing ecosystem; I’ll tell agents which libraries to use, so I know what to expect.
While I don’t read the implementation of anything any more unless there’s a hard algorithmic problem, I do make an effort to read and document APIs thoroughly.
Interfacing is exactly the same, it’s just agents doing it.
> if everybody is vibe coding how long before your "average" dev has no idea what a library even is or why you'd want one?
That is a very good question.
jdkoeck 17 hours ago [-]
> While I don’t read the implementation of anything any more unless there’s a hard algorithmic problem, I do make an effort to read and document APIs thoroughly.
I have some questions.
Are you doing this for client-facing production code?
It seems you believe painting over APIs with some amount of documentation will guarantee the implementation is correct and well designed. Am I misreading that?
You say you still read code when code is « algorithmically hard ». How do you define that?
Software systems have requirements that are essential but not algorithmically hard. For instance, access control in a web application must be thorough and cover all REST resources. How do you know the implementation has the desired properties if you don’t read the code?
Do you have tests? How do you know they’re correct if you don’t read the code? Moreover, how do know if their coverage is sufficient if you don’t read the code?
Do you refactor code or is that not needed anymore?
I don’t understand your answer to the question of why anyone would publish a library if no one reads code anymore. « For the exact same reasons as before ». How so? This isn’t making sense.
svachalek 23 hours ago [-]
Well it's not the dev who would want one, it's the agent, for the same reliability/security reasons that a dev historically would have.
krupan 1 days ago [-]
I think you are correct on how it's playing out because AI cannot write software very well all on its own. The dream is that AI is so good that it can write all the code you need from scratch, replacing all and any code written by anyone else, but that's not happening
sshine 24 hours ago [-]
With guidance, it kind of is happening.
While, simultaneously, an abundance of slop is being made.
selectodude 23 hours ago [-]
GPT-5.6 just finished writing a shim for me in rust that sits between Broadcom’s bullshit kernel and a standard Linux user space to turn my mesh routers into standard computers. At some point I’m not sure what the difference is in practice.
Note: I can’t code. Not a line.
adithyassekhar 19 hours ago [-]
That is amazing, I am surprised how the other replies to your comment just ignore that aspect pf it.
selectodude 6 hours ago [-]
I thought it was cool too, though I understand AI use is a heated debate and I think people get their backs up that some dumb illiterate like me who can't code has ghidra on my laptop decompiling kernel headers. I get it, the deluge is coming for my job too.
vinceguidry 20 hours ago [-]
What do you need your tiny routers to do?
selectodude 6 hours ago [-]
Not run all of ASUS's unstable garbage software.
smcnally 19 hours ago [-]
Does this work on early Velop mesh nodes, by chance?
selectodude 6 hours ago [-]
Doubt it - Linksys encrypts their firmware. ASUS not only doesn't, but left everything in the binary that made it really easy for GPT-5.6 to crack it open and decompile everything in ghidra.
socialcommenter 21 hours ago [-]
> Maintainer exhaustion is totally a secondary effect, not intended.
Malice, incompetence, etc. My question is, how much does it matter _why_ the problem exists because of AI/is being exacerbated by AI?
watwut 14 hours ago [-]
> That is neither the incentive of AI companies nor the truth
They literally sell themselves to investors as the thing that will destroy everything people create. That is their bragging point. And they are using things people created to destroy them and their future work.
Those are their openly stated goals. Which they claimed to achieve 2 years ago.
efitz 11 hours ago [-]
Nowadays reading HN comments I imagine what it was like watching a buggy whip manufacturers meeting around the time of Henry Ford. The world is changing and many previous assumptions are being exposed as not widely held.
Most people in the world don’t care how software comes into existence or what the source code looks like, and never did. Just like most people never cared how most anything else was made. We are seeing software turn from a handcrafted commodity to a mass produced product. The quality is getting better and the cost of production is getting cheaper and this is happening at an astonishing rate.
The world is changing. As much as you enjoyed lovingly crafting buggy whips; most people just want the car. It’s not cruelty; it’s that buggy whips were never the point.
epihelix 4 hours ago [-]
I didn't know that people used to make buggy whips for free and give them away?
The thing about FOSS that everyone keeps forgetting is that it sits outside the market economy.
We write FOSS code because we love doing it, and love giving it away. If nobody else uses my code, I don't care - I'll still write it and still release it. That's the way it's always been, and LLMs will not change this (quite the contrary - they make it easier to realise and maintain FOSS projects).
tonyedgecombe 10 hours ago [-]
>most people just want the car.
That didn’t happen on its own. It took a huge amount of marketing and lobbying to get where we are today.
worthless-trash 9 hours ago [-]
I see more of it like cannibals sitting around a fire, trying to decide where they get their next meal from while side-eying their neighbors body fat percentage.
pryelluw 1 days ago [-]
I’ve stopped all my open source contributions and projects. I’ve now moved my resources to organizing and supporting communities like python Atlanta. My commitment was always the community and not the code. I also want to see what will companies do once open source closes shop and fewer people know how to program. It’s why I’m making sure there is a local support network for those of us who still want to stay in software over the long term.
pixl97 1 days ago [-]
I don't think the battle will be in open source software... I think it will be in hardware at our current rate.
There has been ever increasing consolidation in the hardware world along with an ever growing acceptance of restrictions by the public 'for our safety'.
matheusmoreira 1 days ago [-]
Yeah. Manufacturers are simultaneously pricing and locking us out of silicon. Computers are moving back to big iron tier mainframes, and it looks like remote attestation is the future so any non-corporate owned device will be essentially useless. Free software doesn't matter if we can't run it, or if we're ostracized from digital society should we figure out how to run it.
Everything that everyone who believed in free software worked towards is being destroyed. There is no way to fight back unless we figure out how to fab computers in garages. It was all for nothing. The future is bleak.
ColdStream 22 hours ago [-]
This is why I hope more people start to get behind the 'Perma computing' movement.
Even if you don't agree with the exact political stances of the authors, the broad goals are notable.
I have said it for years now, perma-computing is the missing piece of the free software movement. There is no point in the software being complete free/open if you have hardware that is locked down.
Maybe one day, we will be fabing our computers, maybe not on a garage scale but on a much more local manufacturer scale. Similar to how you can get PCB's custom made but with open processor designs. Nothing too amazing but if you could pick or supply a chip design and have something made on a 300nm node or whatever, that is still a lot of power to the people. Chips that top out at a few million transistors not billion/trillions.
You can do computing up to the level of the mid 90's, which is neat but that is the big trade off you need to make.
mcbishop 15 hours ago [-]
I'm happy to now know about perma computing.
> up to the level of the mid 90s
So pair this with back-to-basics tech (e.g. text files)... that can serve us extremely well.
henry_bone 18 hours ago [-]
From that link:-
"With that said, permacomputing is an anti-capitalist political project. It is driven by several strands of anarchism, decoloniality, intersectional feminism, post-marxism, degrowth, ecologism."
They are post-modernist, collectivist, marxist. I couldn't get behind that.
That ideology is arguably the most destructive in human history.
kubanczyk 6 hours ago [-]
Nothing in this list implies "post-modernist", and post-marxism does not imply "marxist".
kgwxd 17 hours ago [-]
I just got one of those M5 meshtastic things with a keyboard and screen. My kid is in love with it. We're just messaging each other for now, but there's a lot of nodes in our area, so we're going to get a few more devices for family/friends in the area.
m4rtink 10 hours ago [-]
Check also MeshCore - works on the same hardware as MeshTastic (just flash a different firmware) and has some nice new features and seems to scale better than MeshTastic in big meshes. :)
whstl 24 hours ago [-]
This is doubly bad with, in some cases, governments, banks and other institutions pretty much forcing us to own those locked-in devices to run their apps.
ColdStream 22 hours ago [-]
Personally it is looking like I will have a device like that to do those few things, and another that I can actually control, well at least until the signal leave the device.
whattheheckheck 17 hours ago [-]
Regression to the mean of shitty monarchy bullshit in the grand scheme of things
sshine 1 days ago [-]
I recently set up a Forgejo instance for a personal infrastructure project, and because of security, it’s read-only. So I just disable all the “issues”, “pull requests”, “wiki”. It’s a little sad, but also gratifying to know that I’m making stuff available, but I am not looking for any and every chance to have a conversation about it.
marcus_holmes 15 hours ago [-]
We're already seeing what happens: the agents write the code instead of importing the dependency.
This is happening at the moment because of the supply chain risks of dependencies. But if all the open projects stop being maintained it'll just happen more.
robotmaxtron 1 days ago [-]
The agentic era definition of open source is garbage.
Software that is not open source, is proprietary software. Open weight models, are not open source. Binary blobs in a repo with an Apache license, is not open source.
Am I a retro-grouch? Probably. I guess it doesn't matter anymore what I think about it.
mike_hock 24 hours ago [-]
Also, slop code is not open source. It's not source, it's a build artifact. The prompt is the source. But we don't have a deterministic build system for it so publishing the prompt isn't even useful.
robotmaxtron 24 hours ago [-]
imho the prompt is part of a "design", not a build artifact (unless your build system is weird).
a deterministic build system for prompts is a called a compiler.
jaxn 22 hours ago [-]
they are saying the prompt is the source, the code is the artifact. I think it is a valid comparison. when reviewing a PR, I do want to see the prompt(s) that generated the change.
folkrav 22 hours ago [-]
My latest feature was an overarching change across 4 different stacks, about a full work day of going back and forth iterating on different designs, generating workarounds for stack/language specific quirks and the business' usage patterns. Multiple fresh agent sessions, review passes, exploratory work with subagents, etc. "The prompt(s) that generated the change" in that context is multiple hours of discussion, Q&A, refactoring and feedback. Is that really the value, pages and pages of reactive prompting?
jaxn 17 hours ago [-]
Yes. Because that is where the intent is/was. In the future, as more changes are made, having the history of the intent is helpful context. And in that back and forth there are also details of what you didn't want, and why. Some of that can be captured in decision docs, etc.
when devs work in isolation, that context/memory is siloed. Same is true when working across platforms (codex, claude, etc).
lstodd 19 hours ago [-]
Yes.
The value is in how you came to the design you expressed.
folkrav 8 hours ago [-]
What puzzles me is, what matters is context. Most of the context would be the specific model I used and its training data, the result of tool calls, and the model's inner monologue/thinking (which is increasingly getting encrypted by frontier models). My prompts are a tiny sliver of that, and most of them dependended on the actual answers I was getting from the model in the middle of the whole process. Or the result of handoffs, or internal compactions.
What's the value of getting all my prompts if the rest of the equation is unknowable? Unless you mean the value is in the full agent log, but even then, frontier models and harnesses would still be hiding a major part of the equation from us.
zeroimpl 14 hours ago [-]
Wouldn’t the same argument apply even if they didn’t use AI? Being able to drill into coworkers minds would be nice on many occasions.
pmontra 16 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure what level of detail those prompts you write about have so I might misunderstand you.
Before AI we had prompts called "requirements" and of course they were the starting point for reviewing code: the customer needs X, the code doing that is Y.
With agents that prompt became much longer, with the original requirement a short note at the beginning of the conversation with the AI, but the resulting code is about the same size. Maybe in YOLO development the original requirement is all the AI needs but I'll be surprised because requirements from customers are too fuzzy and can be turned into very different features, often too different from what the customers had in mind.
Actually I never looked at the detailed prompts of coworkers, only at the original requirements from customers. How they instructed their agents is not particularly interesting except maybe to get a gist of the different approaches.
submeta 16 hours ago [-]
Which prompt, though? Just the initial one, or the entire conversation? During a project you’ll prompt the agent dozens of times. Are all of those prompts considered the source?
datakan 1 days ago [-]
>"For years, the software engineering industry has operated on a comfortable, perhaps lazy, myth: that open source software is an infinite, self-renewing public good that costs nothing to consume and requires nothing to sustain."
Since when? Open source projects have for decades offered paid support. Projects like Red Hat, Snort, Security Onion and others. I don't know anyone that has ever thought this. It's always been generally accepted that someone has to support it, either paid professional services or a full time employee with expertise.
magicalist 19 hours ago [-]
> It's always been generally accepted that someone has to support it, either paid professional services or a full time employee with expertise.
Yes, it's always been accepted that someone has to support it, but someone else, not me. But these are important dependencies so I'm sure someone will support them.
It's such a common situation that there's a six year old xkcd about it that felt about ten years late at the time.
simoncion 24 hours ago [-]
> I don't know anyone that has ever thought this.
I've known many people who have thought that. None of them were programmers, and many of them were managers.
krupan 1 days ago [-]
"One participant at the retreat noted that permissive licensing was a profound collective mistake, serving as a legal mechanism that enabled the world’s largest corporations to cannibalize volunteer labor..."
Agreed. Linux and GNU did and still do so well because of the GPL. Red Hat built a billion dollar business on GPL software. Tons of Linux developers are payed great salaries by competing corporations that otherwise collaborate on Linux, because none of them are allowed by the GPL to make proprietary changes to the code
ColdStream 22 hours ago [-]
It is amazing how the GPL has inadvertently held up against newer technologies that they couldn't conceive of or just didn't think were a big issue at the time.
Also, you can make propitiatory changes if it is contained within the business. Once you make them public is when there is an issue. But I doubt folks would be wanting to keep patching in their proprietary stuff with every new Linux kernel for instance.
bitbasher 1 days ago [-]
I recently read Eric Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar. It was oddly sad to read.
The enthusiasm and optimistic view of open source and the future of software and craftsmanship. Looking at it in 2026.. incredibly sad.
Forget the bazaar. Back to the cathedral.
conartist6 1 days ago [-]
Nothing that was possible then is less possible or less potent now.
The narrative is not friendly to communities of people owning complex software by sharing work now, but neither was it then. If you believe it was all wrong, an incorrect formulation, then disregard it and do not despair to move on. If you think ESR got something right that nobody can see anymore, then your hope should be rooted in the knowledge of how much less than what's possible we are currently achieving
magicalist 19 hours ago [-]
> If you think ESR got something right that nobody can see anymore, then your hope should be rooted in the knowledge of how much less than what's possible we are currently achieving
So...the worse things are the better because we have more things to improve? Wouldn't it just be better if things weren't worse?
Can't entirely tell if this is supposed to be inspirational or contrarian (I think maybe the first one?), but every bit of shit in a situation being something we can look forward to overcoming by crawling through it isn't the most heart stirring way to look at it and also seems a bit dismissive without engaging with the actual subject.
conartist6 9 hours ago [-]
Well I'm hopeful because I'm not a passive observer here, but rather a bazaar builder.
I could talk for hours. If you want to hear what I have to say at length, come to the place where I build: https://discord.gg/NfMNyYN6cX
inigyou 24 hours ago [-]
The bazaar has been overrun by an army of Cave Johnson's mantis-men. The cathedral is keeping its doors shut, carving out a mantis-free space inside. Occasionally they do controlled experiments on caged mantises.
24 hours ago [-]
phkahler 23 hours ago [-]
Yeah Eric Raymond and open source were a bad move. Should have stuck to Free Software - as in GPL license. All that open source stuff was deliberately made corporation-friendly, which is not what's in the best interest of the code.
ColdStream 21 hours ago [-]
Yep, they took the eye off the ball. Instead of growing free software the harder but much more resilient way, they caved to corporations in the name of quick results. But those quick results have ultimately back fired on them a little.
Open source is huge now but it has lost a lot of the enthusiasm. Much of it feels like just putting out code waiting to be absorbed by some larger parasitic entity that has a marketing team.
Unfortunately, corporate doesn't like the word ethics.
It was funny when GPL 3 came along and it completely leveled the playing field so that they couldn't just take code and not allow modified execution on their devices. Apple suck on GPL2 2008 release GNU tooling for over a decade until they could build alternatives. That they would rather reinvent the wheel than let people use their own software was wild!
Same thing happened when they stripped out the ethics from veganism to make 'plant based diets'. It worked for a while but without the ethics based foundations it just couldn't last.
lstodd 19 hours ago [-]
There were ethics in veganism? Since when? It was always a religious movement, all the way back to Vedanta. A way to set yourself apart and then maybe feel better for not being "like those others".
hailvectron 17 hours ago [-]
There always have been. As a practicing vegan of over 20 years, I made the change consciously for ethical and moral reasons with no interest in "setting myself apart" or "feeling better for not 'being like those others'" by this decision. I do not proselytize, and try hard to not discuss this aspect of my lifestyle unless it becomes awkward to avoid it. Equating veganism to faith movements is superficial. Stating that people choose it to make statements to other people is cynical.
Also I don't know what GP is talking about when it comes to "it just couldn't last." Being vegan can still be a pain in the ass, but it's vastly easier to find "plant-based" options than it was 20 years ago. There seem to be more options every year.
rixed 15 hours ago [-]
> I made the change consciously for ethical and moral reasons with no interest in "setting myself apart" or "feeling better for not 'being like those others'" by this decision
We all believe we do what we do for good reasons, yet we are wrong most of the times.
So, when I hear you saying that you are motivated by pure moral reasons, but not stating those reasons, I can't help but think "this guy is lying to himself", sorry.
Listen, I consider myself some kind of vegetarian: I feel shame for how we humans treat other animals in the food industry, I don't want to take part in it; therefore, I rarely buy meat (I rarely buy anything, actually). But when I go someplace and I'm not the cook, it won't even cross my mind to ask for "a vegetarian alternative"; I eat what is there because it doesn't matter. During the meal I might engage a discussion about how badly we treat animals and we could avoid participating. Not eating or cooking meat is not the point at all, not buying it is the point.
I have met a lot of vegetarians who just "can't eat meat", won't tell why, require a specific meal be prepared for them, exactly like some religious people won't eat pork or wtv, without ever explaining why not. Because they don't want to do proselytism or because they don't want to sound stupid? I'm sure which alternative you will choose for yourself, but I'm not convinced.
bitwize 8 hours ago [-]
The fact that Eric Raymond has gone full fascist in the intervening years was absolutely not on my bingo card back in the late 90s, but it makes CatB even less relevant now.
Of course, he would tell you otherwise. He would say that the victory of the bazaar over the cathedral has only been accelerated by AI; indeed, he doesn't write code anymore and uses LLMs to develop everything. The scary part is, he might be right about that.
4 hours ago [-]
markhahn 17 hours ago [-]
uh-huh. and what source code do you think coding models are trained on?
phkahler 23 hours ago [-]
Permissive licensing is a large part of the issue TFA is talking about. GPL does not have those issues. All FLOSS suffers from AI ingesting the code and being able to output work-alike programs to some extent, but for now large GPL programs - Inkscape, Firefox, VLC, Blender, FreeCAD, KiCAD, the Linux kernel, etc are all safe - none of them are permissively licensed so nobody can proprietize them (is that a word?)
Unfortunately (in my opinion) the rewrite it in Rust movement also abandoned non-permissive licensing, so over time a progressively larger body of work will fall to this.
Chu4eeno 22 hours ago [-]
> All FLOSS suffers from AI ingesting the code and being able to output work-alike programs to some extent
You can also just set some LLM in a loop up with objdump and a C compiler and "copyright-wash" work-alikes of any proprietary software out there. Can't wait for someone to start burning tokens on doing it to baseband firmware and watch everyone who cheered on the non-GPL chardet (plus regulators) squirm.
arjie 1 days ago [-]
The promise of free software was that you, as a user, were not constrained by the software someone else wrote. You could modify it to see fit. Today, I can replicate most software that way. So the promise is more realized than before. The actual code is useful, yes, because it means I don't have to have it written but if it didn't exist I'd still get there.
The copyright and IP maximalism approaches aren't important to me. The world where everyone can have software written easily is much more appealing. The user freedom is better met.
jeremyjh 1 days ago [-]
The software you have generated for your personal use is a micro fraction of all the software that it uses directly and indirectly to fulfill your needs. The rest is OSS maintained by someone at no cost to you.
arjie 1 days ago [-]
The rest is not OSS. Some of it is. Lots of it is proprietary software too and maintained at no cost to me. I can't imagine how much network switching software my stuff goes through. Didn't pay anything for that.
jeremyjh 1 days ago [-]
If you pay someone for internet access you are paying for most of that, and I’m guessing you paid for the switch and router in your own house. But I was talking about the software running on your computer that your code invokes.
arjie 24 hours ago [-]
Sure, and I paid for all the contributions to Linux too in that respect. It's fine, if the unpaid ones want to not do any more work, that's fine too. It was always about user freedom, and now we have it.
jaggederest 23 hours ago [-]
I honestly wonder about what percentage of the toxicity of society is a result of the awful copyright regime. Certainly another good chunk is a result of the patent system being broken.
I guess these are not the top items in the societal problems list, but they really don't help.
ColdStream 21 hours ago [-]
It is odd when you see people freaking out about copyright and patents when they typically have neither of those things personally. They advocate for the intellectual prison.
Not the worst thing society has done but it does end up positioning people as being convinced that they must be beholden to corporations wants.
magicalist 19 hours ago [-]
> It is odd when you see people freaking out about copyright and patents when they typically have neither of those things personally. They advocate for the intellectual prison.
You have at least two comments in this thread lauding the GPL and its effects. So aren't you advocating for the intellectual prison as well?
rixed 15 hours ago [-]
I would be fully onboard with you if the tools to generate all the code anyone need would not be proprietary and would run on a personal computer anyone could buy.
Forgeties79 1 days ago [-]
> The promise of free software was that you, as a user, were not constrained by the software someone else wrote. You could modify it to see fit.
Eh yes and no. The problem is I am not somebody who is comfortable building their own software, so I depend on the generous communities that create free, open source software I can reliably run on my computer. There are lots of people like me! So the benefit isn’t being able to adjust the software to my liking, it’s the knowledge that I can’t have the rug pulled out from under me as easily since I know in theory I can run the software locally, but realistically (hopefully!) somebody else is going to fork and maintain it.
physix 18 hours ago [-]
I think the article is really good, until it starts to offer guidance and making suggestions for the future.
I can't pin it down precisely, but my feeling is that it doesn't fully recognize the fundamental shift taking place. In a sense it's not radical enough, trying more to keep a system afloat whose foundation is being dismantled.
The forces that gave rise to open source will find a new way, because they are based on the nature of the human spirit. We just don't know what it will look like yet.
I think one of the other comments gets in to it, but it's really either AI gets good enough so we can accelerate OSS development with agents, or it's not good enough and that will probably force a pull-back towards more manually created code
(and so no need to worry too much either way as the issue will sort itself out?)
richardjennings 1 days ago [-]
This goes one of two ways.
Either the LLM public capability is not sufficient to positively contribute, or it is.
If it is not sufficient to positively contribute, open source projects become drowned in low quality contributions.
If it is sufficient to positively contribute, we end up with multiple implementations of open source projects.
Actually maybe it only goes one way.
jeremyjh 1 days ago [-]
Personally I’ve been forking a lot more OSS and modifying it for my own use with little regard to contributing back because I haven’t read any of it myself and am not going to make public claims about it. It used to be I’d spend hours or days fixing a bug or adding a feature and getting it merged upstream seemed to help validate that effort. Now there is no effort so no need for validation and I continue on my way.
The commits are in my fork if anyone wants them but I can’t imagine why anyone would.
On the other hand a couple weeks ago I found an annoying bug in a coding agent project and had my agent fix it. It was a very small fix so I could tell it was correct with very little effort. I didn’t open a PR because that required a vouch, but I documented an issue (mostly on my own) and included the patch. I also referenced it in a downstream issue. Then I went to bed. The next morning, I saw a note from downstream thanking me - they’d updated to latest version and the issue was fixed.
The projects bot had reproduced the issue based on my description, tested the fix, validated it, and opened a PR. The maintainer merged it an hour later (it was two lines and obviously correct - easy call with the bots validation) and released it.
It felt like progress.
phkahler 23 hours ago [-]
>> The commits are in my fork if anyone wants them but I can’t imagine why anyone would.
This recently happened with solvespace (I am a maintainer). Someone posted a link to a fork with a bunch of goodies added. I think they just had AI implement some big features that had already been discussed and were either rejected or far future/maybe. That fork still exists but looks to be dead, as there hasn't been any new development since it first appeared. I had a good look at all the commits but I don't see any that I really want to grab as-is. Some of it looked a bit promising though.
I recommend you at least make upstream aware of your fork if there is anything in it that they might want.
markhahn 18 hours ago [-]
smells of AI-pilled management viewpoint. the kind who think that AI has already changed the whole software landscape.
mahirsaid 18 hours ago [-]
Just to mention the hosting of open-source software that isn't reliable. This not only creates a level of uncertainty, but causes lack of trust. The systems a whole is becoming neglected. Microsoft v=benefited from numerous open-source software, yet all there worried about is their subscriptions.
aniceperson 10 hours ago [-]
> Maintainers of load-bearing open-source packages — the invisible pillars holding up modern digital banking
Hi claude
bigwhite 20 hours ago [-]
With the lowering of implementation barriers—approaching a near-zero entry threshold—more open-source software will emerge. But at the same time, more “one-off open-source” projects will also appear. Their characteristics are:
- They meet the localized needs of the original author or a certain subset of people.
- They very likely will not be continuously maintained.
0xferruccio 21 hours ago [-]
The irony of this article is that it reads with the annoying robotic cadence that makes me not want to read slop blogs
Sentences like "The licensing paradox: From freedom to exploitation" are starting to burn my eyes
socalgal2 18 hours ago [-]
> For years, the software engineering industry has operated on a comfortable, perhaps lazy, myth: that open source software is an infinite, self-renewing public good that costs nothing to consume and requires nothing to sustain.
This is provably false and wish that sentiment would die
Microsoft spends at least $600-$800 million on open source The make VS Code, .NET/C#, Edge, TypeScript. They provide free hosting, free CIs, free issues, discussions, free webpages (github). Google spends similar amounts on Chromium, Angular, Go, Flutter, Gemma, etc...
Meta spends similar amounts on React, PyTorch, Presto, Llama
Amazon sends 200-300 million on valkey, OpenSearch, FireCracker, and has dedicated engineers for Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, and Rust
Apple provide swift, WebKit, Clang/LLVM - there spending is also in the 100-200 million range.
That's on top of employees at almost all of those companies fixing bugs and providing patches for everything they use.
People make up the claims like the OP with zero actual evidence.
pmontra 14 hours ago [-]
All of those companies have very compelling reasons to provide those tools for free, as in (most importantly dor adoption) no money asked and (less importantly) open source. They make money because of the number of people using those tools. They are a bridge head into controlling their own share of the market.
So: investment, not good will.
nullorempty 21 hours ago [-]
My reaction is to the discussion more than the the article.
Many have noted that LLMs are relatively good at writing code because they learned from all the code and other material, such as books, written before.
But let's say that we no longer produce the learning material, will LLMs be able to progress on their own or the slop they make (and read) will eventually lead to the decay of the models?
Will the models decay if left to their own devices?
zzzeek 1 days ago [-]
the issue with articles that try to analyze the state of open source and its sustainability and all that is that nothing about open source makes any sense if you just talk about it. Imagine you're transported to 1977 and you work at IBM and you try to tell them, oh hey I have an idea, how about the OS everyone uses for literally all commerce, communication, military, etc., you name it, will be written by one guy in his spare time and later maintained by tens of thousands of mostly unpaid volunteers. "Don't other companies try to copy it and sell it as their own?" "Well sure, but mostly it's better to use the free one everyone knows". Try selling your manager at IBM in 1977 that idea for new software. It would be impossible. It would be impossible today.
Trying to explain how the global economy and welfare of most of humanity is hugely dependent on free software production labor, without the advent of actually seeing a world where this actually happens, is just like when we try to explain something like consciousness. There is no explanation that makes sense. So predictions about new avenues of doom (like "MIT licensing was a huge mistake! we should have all been GPL!") similarly dont carry a lot of weight, because of course these predictions make perfect sense in the abstract, yet real world results don't line up at all.
Basically open source software is an emergent phenomenon, like consciousness or evolution, or perhaps even how very large language models suddenly seemed like real people. It's something that would never be predictable in its own absence, which means it will remain largely unpredictable how it will respond to ongoing changes such as "the open source authors and contributors now use programs themselves to produce more code".
rixed 14 hours ago [-]
How do you prove a system is chaotic in sociology? Without such a proof, isn't it natural to try to explain in retrospect even the systems you failed to predict?
1 days ago [-]
zcw100 1 days ago [-]
People need to stop yelling "Slop!" all the time and saying silly things like "every line of code was reviewed by a human". First, it's ridiculous. There is no possible way to verify that claim, determine what was or wasn't done after reviewing it, and there's no reason to review every single line. It's performative. I have a ton of stuff I haven't bothered contributing. Why? So I can deal with all the hate? When it was "many hands make light work" there was value in sharing the load. Now I've got a backhoe and it's not worth the hassle.
linsomniac 1 days ago [-]
>People need to stop yelling "Slop!" all the time
People are applying that label to anything that has the taint of AI on it. I get why.
I realize there are a lot of reasons why people hate AI, but one that is frequently cited is that it's dehumanizing. It's kind of ridiculous to see those same sort of people call something "slop" when I've put tens of hours into guiding the AI tooling. Talk about dehumanizing!
overgard 1 days ago [-]
It's not performative though. Slop is a burden. I'm sorry you feel excluded by that, but an AI generated PR is not of much value. The maintainer could just as easily do that, if that's what they wanted. Plus lets be realistic about why people contribute slop PRs, it's not for the betterment of the project usually, it's because they either want credit for a "contribution" they didn't bother to make themselves (If you give credit for that, then being a "contributor" is a worthless badge), or they're spamming people for bug bounties.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
It's an underrated point that providing LLM output to someone else is worthless because if they wanted it, they could put in the same input.
quantummagic 18 hours ago [-]
Forming the prompt is still a skill, tokens aren't free, and it all takes some time and attention, which also has a price. So someone else doing that for you isn't exactly worthless, if they do a good job of it.
inigyou 6 hours ago [-]
If they do a good job of it it won't be identifiable as AI output.
calvinmorrison 1 days ago [-]
The zero-cost fallacy: open-source software in the agentic era.
Here's my thoughts on this. It's back to open source, not open maintainer or open usage. I am producing lots of new code, i am publishing it. I am NOT interested in starting a project or having other people contribute. It's a cambrian explosion, the cost of adding features is basically zero. I'm going with "patching software is more common and we need tools around patching" rather than using other peoples stuff, just take what you want and fix it.
One stupid one is XRDP required some hack to go through VNC to connect to an existing session. I now have it built into xrdp and lets you pick the X11 session you on dial up and you're good to go. Why is this not a feature I dont know, but xrdp does it all now without vnc or anything. good stuff. i published it sure, i dont care if anyone uses it though.
bhaak 1 days ago [-]
> the cost of adding features is basically zero
Adding features was always the easy part. Maintaining the code OTOH is not going to be easier.
I see this with an experimental project I’m consciously vibecoding. The code base tends towards a spaghetti coded mess.
Of course you can put in some refactoring prompts and the AI will reorganize the code. But that makes it worse actually.
You have no mental model of the code and after a large refactoring even less.
calvinmorrison 23 hours ago [-]
adding features was not the easy part for me - in fact it was a barrier for expressing most ideas I had.
calvinmorrison 1 days ago [-]
Shift from passive consumption to active ownership.
Implement rigid supply chain auditing.
Formalize an open source contribution and patronage budget.
Well none of these help my bottom line directly so my boss will not approve.
antoineleclair 1 days ago [-]
I stopped reading at "load-bearing" and em dash.
drusepth 1 days ago [-]
Ironically, the prevalence of AI "tells" like that (combined with the ubiquity of AI works passed off as human-written) will inevitably feed back into more use by non-AI writers who think they're normal.
(Also, I'm never gonna give up my em dashes.)
asdff 1 days ago [-]
This assumes non ai writers are drinking from the well of slop. Not all of course. Some people still read old books.
pixl97 1 days ago [-]
Old books don't tell you much about now in a great number of topics.
>Gell-Mann Amnesia effect
We're very familiar with this effect when it comes to the news, but since a lot of people are now looking at older information as some kind of escape it seems prudent to point out that old books themselves are of varying quality.
Moreso, how do you track said quality of old books in the modern age where their will be incentives to game the system (for example those that own publishing rights to said books). Some books will be high quality, but the information in them will be outdated due to changes in understanding. Other books might as well have been written by AI and transported to the past they hold so many bullshit claims.
The pareto distribution will cover the most popular books, but once you step into the long tail of research you've hit another no mans land of is it true or not.
asdff 1 days ago [-]
Reference material is one thing. But literature is pretty timeless. And there are used bookstores and public libraries.
pixl97 1 days ago [-]
You might underestimate the amount of pulp paperbacks that have been printed over the years. Quite often these are just a single step above AI slop.
asdff 1 days ago [-]
Sure, and it infests the little free 'libraries' you see scattered around the neighborhood and often the shelves in the Goodwill, but a good used bookstore and a good public library system will do a bit of filtering on that. These places aren't firehoses.
bigfishrunning 1 days ago [-]
3 load-bearings. incredible.
unlogic 1 days ago [-]
85% AI according to Pangram.
1 days ago [-]
1 days ago [-]
theturtletalks 1 days ago [-]
Open-source alternatives are being launched at an ungodly pace and they are really polished. All these comments about AI Slop are underestimating how good these builders have gotten and AI lets you iterate really fast. If the builder actually uses the software he's building, the feedback loop is really efficient.
I keep a directory of open-source alternatives and just in the past month, I've replaced applications I've used for years with open-source alternatives.
cdrini 1 days ago [-]
What open source alternatives have you switched to recently? Always on the lookout for good OS tools!
theturtletalks 1 days ago [-]
I replaced Raycast recently with Sol[0], but SuperCmd[1] is also really good.
And I’m testing Helium Browser[2]. It’s based on Chromium, but has changed a lot under the hood and I’ve been daily driving it.
Also replacing CapCut with OpenCut[3].
I’ve also completely ditched Codex CLI with Pi[4] and now am trying OMP[5].
I vouched for your recent submission which was dead, might improve your account standing so it doesn't happen again.
I'm curious how you found my comment mentioning TypeWhisper.
I was also wondering about clarification about the apple speech services. Because in the app it says they are on device (I have an m series Mac latest version) but in keyboard settings in MacOS it says many things would be shared with Apple.
It's not a huge issue because I'll just use that other model, which is fantastic, but I'm curious.
theturtletalks 14 hours ago [-]
TypeWhisper looks really nice man, great work. I’ll add it to my directory and sorry HN marked it dead. I also post open-source projects and HN marks it dead as well. Feel like the system is broken or people just flag anything they don’t like.
Cider9986 12 hours ago [-]
It was a new account with 0 interaction, it was not manually flagged. Only the second time with a GitHub link was it killed.
The system is trying its best with all the AI slop. People can email the site admins if their posts are getting unjustly killed.
1 days ago [-]
sshine 1 days ago [-]
> All these comments about AI Slop are underestimating how good these builders have gotten and AI lets you iterate really fast.
Both of these are true: we’re witnessing an unprecedented amount of slop, while also the tools get better and better.
So when talking about Open Source maintainer exhaustion, it’s because of the slop, not because of the great tooling.
AI is an amplifier, and in this case it amplifies the great asymmetry between contributor and maintainer.
pixl97 1 days ago [-]
The 80/20 rule and bullshit asymmetry apply here.
Kind of like going to the app store and picking the app with the most downloads because the other option is looking at 400 different apps that may or may not do the same thing.
PunchyHamster 1 days ago [-]
The problem is as usual, users. AI for maintenance (updating & testing deps, re-writing parts to run with next major version of lib) is pretty low error % and just need some supervision and can make it more effective, in hands of people already familiar with project
But the flipside is of course users that are clueless won't now be stopped by "can't make a PR", they will throw prompt at AI and send it when the AI decides it's good enough
sschueller 1 days ago [-]
I love maintaining open source in an agentic world. I can be a complete asshole about contribution rules and coding standard as long as I define the AGENTS.md. The more strict the better and I can get good clean pull request without an endless back and fourth. I can even require updating the documentation!
An OCD dream but you need to embrace it and configure it or you would get "AI slop".
jeremyjh 1 days ago [-]
Could you share a link to an example? I couldn’t find any PRs you merged this year.
strawberrysoda 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
p2edwards 1 days ago [-]
Don't do this here.
Rendered at 20:39:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Which is a shame, because the premise is intriguing. But it's pretty rude to expect every one of us to sift through ten pages of AI tells to reverse engineer the prompts that hold the information the author wanted to convey. As the saying goes, "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?"
So I ask the Author: Please write this article for us using your own words, taking your own time to convey your thoughts. Submit it and let us read it.
I bet it will be better than this.
That is neither the incentive of AI companies nor the truth.
Availability of Open Source where stealing and illegal relicensing is not being litigated, is a perfect ecosystem for AI to work in.
Maintainer exhaustion is totally a secondary effect, not intended. The maintainer economy was already not working out, AI amplified the asymmetry at play.
They’re killing “programmer”, not “code”.
> I don't see how they wouldn't take out open source with it as a consequence
An analogy: the automobile industry sought to make working horses redundant, not to go door-to-door and kill horses. Horses getting chopped was an indirect economic consequence.
> If nobody even looks at code why would anyone bother to publish a library, much less care about making it maintainable?
For the exact same reasons as before. Agentic programming still integrates well with the existing ecosystem; I’ll tell agents which libraries to use, so I know what to expect.
While I don’t read the implementation of anything any more unless there’s a hard algorithmic problem, I do make an effort to read and document APIs thoroughly.
Interfacing is exactly the same, it’s just agents doing it.
> if everybody is vibe coding how long before your "average" dev has no idea what a library even is or why you'd want one?
That is a very good question.
I have some questions.
Are you doing this for client-facing production code?
It seems you believe painting over APIs with some amount of documentation will guarantee the implementation is correct and well designed. Am I misreading that?
You say you still read code when code is « algorithmically hard ». How do you define that?
Software systems have requirements that are essential but not algorithmically hard. For instance, access control in a web application must be thorough and cover all REST resources. How do you know the implementation has the desired properties if you don’t read the code?
Do you have tests? How do you know they’re correct if you don’t read the code? Moreover, how do know if their coverage is sufficient if you don’t read the code?
Do you refactor code or is that not needed anymore?
I don’t understand your answer to the question of why anyone would publish a library if no one reads code anymore. « For the exact same reasons as before ». How so? This isn’t making sense.
While, simultaneously, an abundance of slop is being made.
Note: I can’t code. Not a line.
Malice, incompetence, etc. My question is, how much does it matter _why_ the problem exists because of AI/is being exacerbated by AI?
They literally sell themselves to investors as the thing that will destroy everything people create. That is their bragging point. And they are using things people created to destroy them and their future work.
Those are their openly stated goals. Which they claimed to achieve 2 years ago.
Most people in the world don’t care how software comes into existence or what the source code looks like, and never did. Just like most people never cared how most anything else was made. We are seeing software turn from a handcrafted commodity to a mass produced product. The quality is getting better and the cost of production is getting cheaper and this is happening at an astonishing rate.
The world is changing. As much as you enjoyed lovingly crafting buggy whips; most people just want the car. It’s not cruelty; it’s that buggy whips were never the point.
The thing about FOSS that everyone keeps forgetting is that it sits outside the market economy.
We write FOSS code because we love doing it, and love giving it away. If nobody else uses my code, I don't care - I'll still write it and still release it. That's the way it's always been, and LLMs will not change this (quite the contrary - they make it easier to realise and maintain FOSS projects).
That didn’t happen on its own. It took a huge amount of marketing and lobbying to get where we are today.
There has been ever increasing consolidation in the hardware world along with an ever growing acceptance of restrictions by the public 'for our safety'.
Everything that everyone who believed in free software worked towards is being destroyed. There is no way to fight back unless we figure out how to fab computers in garages. It was all for nothing. The future is bleak.
https://permacomputing.net/
Even if you don't agree with the exact political stances of the authors, the broad goals are notable.
I have said it for years now, perma-computing is the missing piece of the free software movement. There is no point in the software being complete free/open if you have hardware that is locked down.
Maybe one day, we will be fabing our computers, maybe not on a garage scale but on a much more local manufacturer scale. Similar to how you can get PCB's custom made but with open processor designs. Nothing too amazing but if you could pick or supply a chip design and have something made on a 300nm node or whatever, that is still a lot of power to the people. Chips that top out at a few million transistors not billion/trillions.
You can do computing up to the level of the mid 90's, which is neat but that is the big trade off you need to make.
> up to the level of the mid 90s
So pair this with back-to-basics tech (e.g. text files)... that can serve us extremely well.
"With that said, permacomputing is an anti-capitalist political project. It is driven by several strands of anarchism, decoloniality, intersectional feminism, post-marxism, degrowth, ecologism."
They are post-modernist, collectivist, marxist. I couldn't get behind that.
That ideology is arguably the most destructive in human history.
This is happening at the moment because of the supply chain risks of dependencies. But if all the open projects stop being maintained it'll just happen more.
Software that is not open source, is proprietary software. Open weight models, are not open source. Binary blobs in a repo with an Apache license, is not open source.
Am I a retro-grouch? Probably. I guess it doesn't matter anymore what I think about it.
a deterministic build system for prompts is a called a compiler.
when devs work in isolation, that context/memory is siloed. Same is true when working across platforms (codex, claude, etc).
The value is in how you came to the design you expressed.
What's the value of getting all my prompts if the rest of the equation is unknowable? Unless you mean the value is in the full agent log, but even then, frontier models and harnesses would still be hiding a major part of the equation from us.
Before AI we had prompts called "requirements" and of course they were the starting point for reviewing code: the customer needs X, the code doing that is Y.
With agents that prompt became much longer, with the original requirement a short note at the beginning of the conversation with the AI, but the resulting code is about the same size. Maybe in YOLO development the original requirement is all the AI needs but I'll be surprised because requirements from customers are too fuzzy and can be turned into very different features, often too different from what the customers had in mind.
Actually I never looked at the detailed prompts of coworkers, only at the original requirements from customers. How they instructed their agents is not particularly interesting except maybe to get a gist of the different approaches.
Since when? Open source projects have for decades offered paid support. Projects like Red Hat, Snort, Security Onion and others. I don't know anyone that has ever thought this. It's always been generally accepted that someone has to support it, either paid professional services or a full time employee with expertise.
Yes, it's always been accepted that someone has to support it, but someone else, not me. But these are important dependencies so I'm sure someone will support them.
It's such a common situation that there's a six year old xkcd about it that felt about ten years late at the time.
I've known many people who have thought that. None of them were programmers, and many of them were managers.
Agreed. Linux and GNU did and still do so well because of the GPL. Red Hat built a billion dollar business on GPL software. Tons of Linux developers are payed great salaries by competing corporations that otherwise collaborate on Linux, because none of them are allowed by the GPL to make proprietary changes to the code
Also, you can make propitiatory changes if it is contained within the business. Once you make them public is when there is an issue. But I doubt folks would be wanting to keep patching in their proprietary stuff with every new Linux kernel for instance.
The enthusiasm and optimistic view of open source and the future of software and craftsmanship. Looking at it in 2026.. incredibly sad.
Forget the bazaar. Back to the cathedral.
The narrative is not friendly to communities of people owning complex software by sharing work now, but neither was it then. If you believe it was all wrong, an incorrect formulation, then disregard it and do not despair to move on. If you think ESR got something right that nobody can see anymore, then your hope should be rooted in the knowledge of how much less than what's possible we are currently achieving
So...the worse things are the better because we have more things to improve? Wouldn't it just be better if things weren't worse?
Can't entirely tell if this is supposed to be inspirational or contrarian (I think maybe the first one?), but every bit of shit in a situation being something we can look forward to overcoming by crawling through it isn't the most heart stirring way to look at it and also seems a bit dismissive without engaging with the actual subject.
I could talk for hours. If you want to hear what I have to say at length, come to the place where I build: https://discord.gg/NfMNyYN6cX
Open source is huge now but it has lost a lot of the enthusiasm. Much of it feels like just putting out code waiting to be absorbed by some larger parasitic entity that has a marketing team.
Unfortunately, corporate doesn't like the word ethics.
It was funny when GPL 3 came along and it completely leveled the playing field so that they couldn't just take code and not allow modified execution on their devices. Apple suck on GPL2 2008 release GNU tooling for over a decade until they could build alternatives. That they would rather reinvent the wheel than let people use their own software was wild!
Same thing happened when they stripped out the ethics from veganism to make 'plant based diets'. It worked for a while but without the ethics based foundations it just couldn't last.
Also I don't know what GP is talking about when it comes to "it just couldn't last." Being vegan can still be a pain in the ass, but it's vastly easier to find "plant-based" options than it was 20 years ago. There seem to be more options every year.
So, when I hear you saying that you are motivated by pure moral reasons, but not stating those reasons, I can't help but think "this guy is lying to himself", sorry.
Listen, I consider myself some kind of vegetarian: I feel shame for how we humans treat other animals in the food industry, I don't want to take part in it; therefore, I rarely buy meat (I rarely buy anything, actually). But when I go someplace and I'm not the cook, it won't even cross my mind to ask for "a vegetarian alternative"; I eat what is there because it doesn't matter. During the meal I might engage a discussion about how badly we treat animals and we could avoid participating. Not eating or cooking meat is not the point at all, not buying it is the point.
I have met a lot of vegetarians who just "can't eat meat", won't tell why, require a specific meal be prepared for them, exactly like some religious people won't eat pork or wtv, without ever explaining why not. Because they don't want to do proselytism or because they don't want to sound stupid? I'm sure which alternative you will choose for yourself, but I'm not convinced.
Of course, he would tell you otherwise. He would say that the victory of the bazaar over the cathedral has only been accelerated by AI; indeed, he doesn't write code anymore and uses LLMs to develop everything. The scary part is, he might be right about that.
Unfortunately (in my opinion) the rewrite it in Rust movement also abandoned non-permissive licensing, so over time a progressively larger body of work will fall to this.
You can also just set some LLM in a loop up with objdump and a C compiler and "copyright-wash" work-alikes of any proprietary software out there. Can't wait for someone to start burning tokens on doing it to baseband firmware and watch everyone who cheered on the non-GPL chardet (plus regulators) squirm.
The copyright and IP maximalism approaches aren't important to me. The world where everyone can have software written easily is much more appealing. The user freedom is better met.
I guess these are not the top items in the societal problems list, but they really don't help.
Not the worst thing society has done but it does end up positioning people as being convinced that they must be beholden to corporations wants.
You have at least two comments in this thread lauding the GPL and its effects. So aren't you advocating for the intellectual prison as well?
Eh yes and no. The problem is I am not somebody who is comfortable building their own software, so I depend on the generous communities that create free, open source software I can reliably run on my computer. There are lots of people like me! So the benefit isn’t being able to adjust the software to my liking, it’s the knowledge that I can’t have the rug pulled out from under me as easily since I know in theory I can run the software locally, but realistically (hopefully!) somebody else is going to fork and maintain it.
I can't pin it down precisely, but my feeling is that it doesn't fully recognize the fundamental shift taking place. In a sense it's not radical enough, trying more to keep a system afloat whose foundation is being dismantled.
The forces that gave rise to open source will find a new way, because they are based on the nature of the human spirit. We just don't know what it will look like yet.
Claude! [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48905248
(and so no need to worry too much either way as the issue will sort itself out?)
Either the LLM public capability is not sufficient to positively contribute, or it is.
If it is not sufficient to positively contribute, open source projects become drowned in low quality contributions.
If it is sufficient to positively contribute, we end up with multiple implementations of open source projects.
Actually maybe it only goes one way.
The commits are in my fork if anyone wants them but I can’t imagine why anyone would.
On the other hand a couple weeks ago I found an annoying bug in a coding agent project and had my agent fix it. It was a very small fix so I could tell it was correct with very little effort. I didn’t open a PR because that required a vouch, but I documented an issue (mostly on my own) and included the patch. I also referenced it in a downstream issue. Then I went to bed. The next morning, I saw a note from downstream thanking me - they’d updated to latest version and the issue was fixed.
The projects bot had reproduced the issue based on my description, tested the fix, validated it, and opened a PR. The maintainer merged it an hour later (it was two lines and obviously correct - easy call with the bots validation) and released it.
It felt like progress.
This recently happened with solvespace (I am a maintainer). Someone posted a link to a fork with a bunch of goodies added. I think they just had AI implement some big features that had already been discussed and were either rejected or far future/maybe. That fork still exists but looks to be dead, as there hasn't been any new development since it first appeared. I had a good look at all the commits but I don't see any that I really want to grab as-is. Some of it looked a bit promising though.
I recommend you at least make upstream aware of your fork if there is anything in it that they might want.
Hi claude
- They meet the localized needs of the original author or a certain subset of people. - They very likely will not be continuously maintained.
Sentences like "The licensing paradox: From freedom to exploitation" are starting to burn my eyes
This is provably false and wish that sentiment would die
Microsoft spends at least $600-$800 million on open source The make VS Code, .NET/C#, Edge, TypeScript. They provide free hosting, free CIs, free issues, discussions, free webpages (github). Google spends similar amounts on Chromium, Angular, Go, Flutter, Gemma, etc...
Meta spends similar amounts on React, PyTorch, Presto, Llama
Amazon sends 200-300 million on valkey, OpenSearch, FireCracker, and has dedicated engineers for Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, and Rust
Apple provide swift, WebKit, Clang/LLVM - there spending is also in the 100-200 million range.
That's on top of employees at almost all of those companies fixing bugs and providing patches for everything they use.
People make up the claims like the OP with zero actual evidence.
So: investment, not good will.
Many have noted that LLMs are relatively good at writing code because they learned from all the code and other material, such as books, written before.
But let's say that we no longer produce the learning material, will LLMs be able to progress on their own or the slop they make (and read) will eventually lead to the decay of the models?
Will the models decay if left to their own devices?
Trying to explain how the global economy and welfare of most of humanity is hugely dependent on free software production labor, without the advent of actually seeing a world where this actually happens, is just like when we try to explain something like consciousness. There is no explanation that makes sense. So predictions about new avenues of doom (like "MIT licensing was a huge mistake! we should have all been GPL!") similarly dont carry a lot of weight, because of course these predictions make perfect sense in the abstract, yet real world results don't line up at all.
Basically open source software is an emergent phenomenon, like consciousness or evolution, or perhaps even how very large language models suddenly seemed like real people. It's something that would never be predictable in its own absence, which means it will remain largely unpredictable how it will respond to ongoing changes such as "the open source authors and contributors now use programs themselves to produce more code".
People are applying that label to anything that has the taint of AI on it. I get why.
I realize there are a lot of reasons why people hate AI, but one that is frequently cited is that it's dehumanizing. It's kind of ridiculous to see those same sort of people call something "slop" when I've put tens of hours into guiding the AI tooling. Talk about dehumanizing!
Here's my thoughts on this. It's back to open source, not open maintainer or open usage. I am producing lots of new code, i am publishing it. I am NOT interested in starting a project or having other people contribute. It's a cambrian explosion, the cost of adding features is basically zero. I'm going with "patching software is more common and we need tools around patching" rather than using other peoples stuff, just take what you want and fix it.
One stupid one is XRDP required some hack to go through VNC to connect to an existing session. I now have it built into xrdp and lets you pick the X11 session you on dial up and you're good to go. Why is this not a feature I dont know, but xrdp does it all now without vnc or anything. good stuff. i published it sure, i dont care if anyone uses it though.
Adding features was always the easy part. Maintaining the code OTOH is not going to be easier.
I see this with an experimental project I’m consciously vibecoding. The code base tends towards a spaghetti coded mess.
Of course you can put in some refactoring prompts and the AI will reorganize the code. But that makes it worse actually.
You have no mental model of the code and after a large refactoring even less.
Implement rigid supply chain auditing.
Formalize an open source contribution and patronage budget.
Well none of these help my bottom line directly so my boss will not approve.
(Also, I'm never gonna give up my em dashes.)
>Gell-Mann Amnesia effect
We're very familiar with this effect when it comes to the news, but since a lot of people are now looking at older information as some kind of escape it seems prudent to point out that old books themselves are of varying quality.
Moreso, how do you track said quality of old books in the modern age where their will be incentives to game the system (for example those that own publishing rights to said books). Some books will be high quality, but the information in them will be outdated due to changes in understanding. Other books might as well have been written by AI and transported to the past they hold so many bullshit claims.
The pareto distribution will cover the most popular books, but once you step into the long tail of research you've hit another no mans land of is it true or not.
I keep a directory of open-source alternatives and just in the past month, I've replaced applications I've used for years with open-source alternatives.
And I’m testing Helium Browser[2]. It’s based on Chromium, but has changed a lot under the hood and I’ve been daily driving it.
Also replacing CapCut with OpenCut[3].
I’ve also completely ditched Codex CLI with Pi[4] and now am trying OMP[5].
0. https://github.com/ospfranco/sol
1. https://github.com/SuperCmdLabs/SuperCmd
2. https://github.com/imputnet/helium
3. https://github.com/OpenCut-app/OpenCut
4. https://github.com/earendil-works/pi
5. https://github.com/can1357/oh-my-pi
SuperCMD
Zed
Typewhisper
I'm curious how you found my comment mentioning TypeWhisper.
I was also wondering about clarification about the apple speech services. Because in the app it says they are on device (I have an m series Mac latest version) but in keyboard settings in MacOS it says many things would be shared with Apple.
It's not a huge issue because I'll just use that other model, which is fantastic, but I'm curious.
The system is trying its best with all the AI slop. People can email the site admins if their posts are getting unjustly killed.
Both of these are true: we’re witnessing an unprecedented amount of slop, while also the tools get better and better.
So when talking about Open Source maintainer exhaustion, it’s because of the slop, not because of the great tooling.
AI is an amplifier, and in this case it amplifies the great asymmetry between contributor and maintainer.
Kind of like going to the app store and picking the app with the most downloads because the other option is looking at 400 different apps that may or may not do the same thing.
But the flipside is of course users that are clueless won't now be stopped by "can't make a PR", they will throw prompt at AI and send it when the AI decides it's good enough
An OCD dream but you need to embrace it and configure it or you would get "AI slop".