No. They don't need to maintain, debug and extend those libraries.

Well, what if one becomes unmaintained or has issues that only affect your project. Why is that uncontrolled code different to generated code? Is it specifically that it's generated?

This isn't a trick question, BTW. It's a genuine attempt to get to the rationale behind your (and the GP's) stance on this.

In particular, the GP said:

> Or to phrase it more succinctly: if you are in camp 2 but don't have the passion of camp 1, you are a threat for the long term.

That hints I think at their rationale, that their stance is based on placing importance on the parts of software development that they enjoy, rather than any logical basis.

▲

karmakurtisaani 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Well, what if one becomes unmaintained or has issues that only affect your project.

This happens, but very rarely compared to changes in your own code base. If a library breaks, you can usually find an alternative, but even in that case you need to know how to modify your own code.

The difference with generated code is that you are tasked to maintain the generated code.

▲

closewith 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> This happens, but very rarely compared to changes in your own code base.

I don't think this is true, but say we accept it.

> The difference with generated code is that you are tasked to maintain the generated code.

Is this a task that LLMs are incapable of performing?

	▲	karmakurtisaani 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Is this a task that LLMs are incapable of performing? That's what people tend to report, yes.