I think we are moving from "can you build this product?" to "do i trust you to support this product?". Software is cheap, trust is a premium.

Developers and companies who put real care into their product will come out on top. A large part of that is going to be, what not to build - something AI agents will always say yes to.

To be fair, was always the case but its only going to be made more apparent as AI scales out.

▲

joshstrange 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I think we are moving from "can you build this product?" to "do i trust you to support this product?". Software is cheap, trust is a premium.

This right here!

I have very little issue with LLM-generated code, my issue is mostly with people throwing codebases over the fence, declaring it the best library/framework/app/platform/whatever and in 3 months I know the repo will say "Last commit 3 months ago".

Some things are "done" and don't need constant updates but most of the "bad" LLM code IMHO is the kind of stuff I know requires dedication (even if an LLM is writing all the code) and commitment to the library/etc for it to succeed.

If all you've done is vibe-coded something and aren't going to support it then I'll just vibe-code my own version tailor-made for my use-case that I can support myself.

I've thought about this a lot in relation to my side-business "could someone vibe code this?" and the answer is absolutely yes they could, but my customers don't come from me throwing code out into the world and walking away. My continued support, handling issues, being on-site for events (I make event-based software like food festivals) is where I provide the value. They've never once cared what the code looks like or how it works, it's the support they are really paying for. Someone to have the answers and track them down if they don't have the answer at their fingertips, that's the value I provide (and always have if I'm being honest).

Follow-through continues to be best way to achieve success IMHO.

▲

dpoloncsak 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I will say, when working with the recent batch of frontier models, even the last batch, if you ask "Do you think we should xyz" it may sometimes push back for an alternate solution.

Now, I can't promise it's advice is worth taking, but they do seem to be taking strides at judging the relevancy of some needless additions.

▲

spprashant 4 days ago | parent [-]

I agree with your observation. Although the framing of the question signals some of the response "Do you think.. " forces the model to check for the cost-benefits.

We can definitely mould AI agents to think more critically about these things, I dont know how effective it will be in the long term honestly.

	▲	jorisw 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Recommend checking out Ponytail — a pi extension that behaves like a senior engineer who keeps the LLM code generation in check, and the processing of your prompts just the same https://ponytail.dev

▲

smalltorch 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What are the actual maintenance items you will run into for offline utilities if the initial version has been throughly tested and works exactly how you want it?

Is it typically bug hunting on edge cases? Feature requests? If the initial product is polished enough, what can I realistically expect to run into down the line?

▲

spprashant 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The OS changes all the time, Apple/Google stop supporting an API your app relied on, security vulnerabilities get published, even stupid stuff like timezone changes can break a perfect app in strange ways.

	▲	oblio 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Besides that, security cipher updates, internet protocol updates, there are a myriad ways applications that stand still can break.

▲

jorisw 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Software will never be truly stable as long as their environment (the world, ultimately) is not stable

▲

xnx 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> "do i trust you to support this product?"

Excellent case for open source local software.