I feel moved to take neither path. There's got to be a better way forward than choosing between "stay on version X of libfoo forever" and "swim in the slop ocean".
0 Boosts
0 Likes
I really do think that's the standard we should be using to judge software: is it functional, is it secure, and is it prosocial. All three are required, regardless of how the software was made.
Prosocial software is software made by and for people whose agenda benefits humanity in some way, encourages the best in us, uplifts us in some way. Software that helps make things better, not worse.
This is a higher bar than it would seem, apparently, since very little passes muster.
We should regard anything made by people like DHH as antisocial by nature. Unproductive, antisocial software that serves only the interests of the people who made it, or paid others to make for them.
@mos_8502 the problem here is that the LLM is an inherently fascist edifice and can only be used to antisocial ends. "local" and "open weight" models are built from the same exploitation and fascist mindset as the commercial ones.
I see LLM coding as akin to sculpting more than it is traditional development. You can't control exactly what the output consists of at a molecular level, but with care and human effort you can guide it into a form that's productive and useful and prosocial.
Which is not how it's being largely used, to the detriment of all.