I don't really read papers and haven't read this one either but that summary.

> In vibe coding, an AI agent builds software by selecting and assembling open-source software (OSS),

Are they talking about indirectly due to prior training of the model? No agent I use is selecting and assembling open source software. That's more of an integration type of job not software development. Are they talking about packages and libraries? If yes, that's exactly how most people use those too.

I mean like this:

> often without users directly reading documentation, reporting bugs, or otherwise engaging with maintainers.

and then,

> Vibe coding raises productivity by lowering the cost of using and building on existing code, but it also weakens the user engagement through which many maintainers earn returns.

Maintainers who earn "returns" must be such a small niche as to be insignificant. Or do they mean things like github stars?

> When OSS is monetized only through direct user engagement, greater adoption of vibe coding lowers entry and sharing, reduces the availability and quality of OSS, and reduces welfare despite higher productivity.

Now the hypothesis is exactly the opposite. Do agents not "select and assamble" OSS anymore? And what does this have to do with how OSS is "monetized"?

> Sustaining OSS at its current scale under widespread vibe coding requires major changes in how maintainers are paid.

Sustaining OSS insofar as maintainers do it for a living requries major changes. Period. I don't see how vibe coding which makes all of this easier and cheaper is changing that equation. Quality is a different matter altogether and can still be achieved.

I am seeing a bunch of disjointed claims taken as truth that I frankly do not agree with in the first place.

What would the result of such a study even explain?

Author here. By "returns" we mean any reward the developer is aiming for, whether money, recognition, world fame, future jobs, helping fellow developers. Sorry, econ jargon.

AI agents can select and load the appropriate packages and libraries without the user even knowing the name of the library, let alone that of the developer. This reduces the visibility of developers among users, who are now less likely to give a star, sponsor, offer a job, recommend the library to others etc.

Even as a business user, say an agency building websites, I could have been a fedn of certain js frameworks, hosting meetups, buying swags, sponsoring development. I am less likely to do that if I have no idea what framework is powering the websites I build.

Our argument is that rewards fall faster with vibe coding than productivity increases. OSS developers lose motivation, they stop maintaining existing libraries, don't bother sharing new ones (even if they keep writing a lot of code for themselves).