> Why do they think they are "helping" with hallucinated rubbish that can't even build?

Because they can't tell the difference between what the machine is outputting, and what people have built. All they see is the superficial resemblance (long lines of incomprehensbile code) and the reward that the people writing the code have got, and want that reward too.

"Main character energy". What they're really doing is protecting their view of themselves as smart, and they're making a contribution for the sake of trying to perform being an OSS dev rather than out of need or altruism.

AI is absolutely terrible for people like that, as it's the perfect enabler.

You're asking why oil doesn't act like water. It's not really an impossible task, it's just not one they agree with.

I wonder how many are account farming.

It's the same as cheating in a game. You are given an """advantage""", so lying about it seems like the best option

LLMs are in this case enabling bad behavior, but open source software has always been vulnerable to this. Similarly, people who use LLMs to do this kind of thing are the kind of people who would have done it without LLMs but for the large effort it would have taken. We're just learning now how large that group is.

This is a good thing, it's an opportunity to make open source development processes robust to this kind of sabotage.

"Claude, don't create any technical debt please"

You are talking about bad programmers who are at least able to fool their managers for at least several years. The people OP is talking about could not even do that and most likely would have dropped out in the first week trying to program full time since they just don’t have the aptitude and patience to get unblocked after their first compilation error. Now they can go very far with a LLM.

This is an excellent point. LLMs might merely be exposing and amplifying behaviors that were always there. This can be an opportunity, in that shining light on it may allow us to cleanse ourselves of it. It's fundamentally about integrity, and sadly it's becoming clearer how few possess it (if it ever wasn't!). But maybe we'll get better at measuring integrity, and make hiring/collaboration decisions based on it.

I have never used an LLM to write. Writing forces me to think (and I edited the comment a couple of times when writing it which helped me clear up my thinking). "It's a viable way to live and sometimes it's the only way to live" is a personal realization that has taken me some time to understand. You can go back through my comment history to the time before LLMs to check if my style was different then.

I don't get that impression at all. LLMs would have avoided the stylistic repetition of "live". Asking an LLM to reformulate the sentences you quoted yields this slop:

> There are a lot of people who go through life by vibing. And honestly: that’s not automatically “bad.” Sometimes it’s even the only workable way to get through things. The issue is that “vibe-first” people tend to have a pretty loose relationship with truth, rigor, and being pinned down by specifics. They’ll confidently move forward on what sounds right instead of what they can verify.

I'll finish this post with a sentence containing an em-dash -- just to confuse people -- and by remarking on how sad I find it that people latch onto dashes and complete sentences as the signifiers of LLM use, instead of the inconsistent logic and general sloppiness that's the actual problem.