The era of sharing some small programs that you made with others to benefit from is over imo.

You can just vibe code it yourself. If your requirements are narrower (eg. you only need support for 3 networks and not 12), you will end up with something that takes less time to develop (possibly less than a day), it will have a smaller surface for problems, and it will be much better tailored to your specific needs. If you pay attention to what the LLM is doing it will also be easier to maintain or extend further.

The surface for security vulnerabilities also gets narrower, since you "only" have to trust the LLM (which is still a huge ask, but still better than LLM + 1 random person).

> The era of sharing some small programs that you made with others to benefit from is over imo. > You can just vibe code it yourself.

+1.

The password manager I use full time now is “Kenpass”, which has exactly one user: me. I have it on iOS/macOS/Linux, browser extensions, CLI and (native, no electron) UI for each, syncs with my homelab server over my wireguard tunnel, and it covers all my use cases. Took me maybe a week (a few hours total, spread around.) I feel no reason to share it with anyone, it does exactly what I need and I only need to fix the bugs I find, for myself.

We’re really living in crazy times.

> If you pay attention to what the LLM is doing it will also be easier to maintain or extend further

That's another nice part: I actually really enjoy feng-shui refactoring code to fit my tastes, and I've given the LLM's code a bunch of refactoring passes essentially "just for fun". I understand the codebase enough that sometimes I implement features myself instead of having the LLM do it, if I'm in the mood to. But I'd probably never have the time or energy to start such a project from scratch... having the initial MVP done in essentially one shot was a huge boost.

> The surface for security vulnerabilities also gets narrower, since you "only" have to trust the LLM (which is still a huge ask, but still better than LLM + 1 random person).

On top of which, any such vulnerabilities will be mostly low value: n different implementations, each with their own idiosyncrasies, 90% of them serving one person.