Said developers will decide: either fork or retire their LLMs. As simple as that. Nothing strange at all.

The productive ones will just fork and accelerate faster. I understand the need for the mental muscle, this framing just sounds terrible at this point. Something something human scrutiny is not even an option the people want to consider.

▲

latexr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The productive ones will just fork and accelerate faster.

Zig has had a similar policy for a while. Where are these myriad forks which accelerate faster, and the communities behind them?

	▲	paaloeye 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, where are they?

▲

paaloeye 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Let's see when they deliver real features alone which are widely adopted and battle-tested in production.

▲

handoflixue 3 hours ago | parent [-]

https://www.ign.com/articles/we-vibe-coded-a-new-epic-games-...

It's not hypothetical to say that an LLM can write widely adopted, battle-tested, production code.

Claude Code would be another example.

Linux is still mostly human, but even Linus Torvalds has warmed up to the idea that LLMs are tools a skilled user can use to contribute there.

There's a lot of quieter, private examples where some company rewrote their entire back-end or internal tooling with an LLM. You just tend not to hear about it because "we used AI" is currently negative marketing/PR, so why say it out loud?

	▲	nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Remember when the Claude Code devs compared their TUI to a game engine while trying to explain why it was so buggy and slow? https://x.com/trq212/status/2014051501786931427 Remember, game engines can render millions of triangles per frame, and Claude Code struggles to render a few hundred characters on a monospace grid. I wouldn't hold it up as a shining beacon of quality.