> Although i was under the impression that they usually preferred hand optimized assembly.

Using LLMs/agents to do gap analysis and fill boilerplate doesn't rule out also reviewing the output and hand-optimising. That is how the tools should be used (if you aren't being a luddite like me and not using them at all) rather than click-and-hope vibe-coding.

▲

brookst 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And as a ffmpeg user with some old/weird hardware, I would much prefer click-and-hope support to no support at all. Ideally they’d have the resources for a real live human to hand-code assembly for every codec for every platform, but that’s probably not realistic. I’ll take what I can get and dust off my assembly skills if a click-and-hope implementation is close but not quite enough.

▲

znpy 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You can very likely do the click-and-hope on your own with a 20 $/month cursor/codex/claude/grok subscription.

edit: actually if you have the weird/exotic hardware you’re in the best position to do so as you can actually test whatever the coding agents would shit out.

▲

shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Makes sense.

The problem I see is that LLM use deters many potential contributors. I understand that in your use case this is not an issue since you prefer working code over theoretical contributors (as said makes a lot of sense), but I am noticing this in many projects that transitioned hard into an AI dependency. It puts a barrier to some people. If 99% of a project's contributions are via AI, is that project still alive?

	▲	cjmcqueen 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, contribution is what keeps a project alive. It's up to the people involved to maintain quality. That's management. Two different things, both important.