←back to thread

The fate of "small" open source

(nolanlawson.com)
295 points todsacerdoti | 2 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.533s | source
Show context
p0w3n3d ◴[17 Nov 25 08:10 UTC] No.45951721[source]▶

  Given that some 80% of developers are now using AI in their regular work, blob-util is almost certainly the kind of thing that most developers would just happily have an LLM generate for them. Sure, you could use blob-util, but then you’d be taking on an extra dependency, with unknown performance, maintenance, and supply-chain risks.
Letting LLM write utility code is a sword that cuts both ways. You often create a throw-away code that is unproven and requires maintenance. It's not a guarantee that the blobutil or toString or whatever created by AI won't fail at some edge cases. That's why e.g. in Java there is Apache commons which is perceived as an industry standard nowadays.
replies(5): >>45952184 #>>45952590 #>>45953107 #>>45953418 #>>45958322 #
1. jaapz ◴[17 Nov 25 09:46 UTC] No.45952184[source]▶
Exactly. When you assume blob-util to be a utility library that has been in use for quite a while by many people in many different contexts, hasn't seen much changes and just "works", IMHO the risk of weird bugs is a lot larger with LLM-generated code. Code generated by LLM's often have the problem that the code seems logical, but then contain weird bugs that aren't immediately obvious.
replies(1): >>45952250 #
2. p0w3n3d ◴[17 Nov 25 09:58 UTC] No.45952250[source]▶
Agreed. The code available in e.g. Apache commons is not perfect, but it's seasoned and has the edge cases documented