> Now companies selling LLM coding agents enter the scene, promising to eliminate their customers' dependence on the commons, and whatever minimal obligations they had to support it.

This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it.

> They prefer a future where computer programs are purchased by the token from model providers to one where they might have to unintentionally help out a competitor.

I don't think that's even a thought. The thought is that "no one can tell me no".

> This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it.

I agree. I'm just observing what they're doing.

> I don't think that's even a thought. The thought is that "no one can tell me no".

I doubt there's any one thought driving things. I didn't mean to imply the existence of some grand strategy or scheme. The preference I speak of isn't of any person, it's the direction pointed at by incentives and circumstance. Companies will make decisions to steer clear of helping competitors. Separately, they signal great interest in replacing costs spent on labor with costs spent on services. See the transition to cloud. The result is the preference of a world where code is like gasoline, purchased from a handful of suppliers for metered cost.

> This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it.

In corporate reality they don't care. They have their product, requirement. As it starts to rot it's easier to rebuild than to maintain.

If you can ask for an LLM with a skeleton crew team now they can do it all again in five years time with the next level of LLMs.