i agree with your point: "we" always wrote code and abandoned it
the claim here is made against flatpak submissions, which involve pr reviews
i think a point being missed is that open source has always written code that was going to be reused by corps, but PRs in it were likely to help humans join open source, and develop coding skills
Isn't the benefit from LLM that anyone can create that little software that does scratch the particular needs the user has. Once scratched it's done its job. Rinse and repeat the next time. There is no longer the need to clean and maintain code for the next time. A bit like fast fashion! We are doomed.
Stop publishing them! Vibe coded projects are totally fine for your own consumption. But if you're not going to do the real hard work - build a community, fix bugs and add flexibility for all types of users - just keep it to yourself. Your slop project has no value to anybody.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 36.2 ms ] threadop doesn't provide code, so my effort stays at throwing in a claude session and providing code without ANY review
trust my numbers as much as you usually trust claude code
trust the original numbers as you usually trust no code
yes unfortunately there is no baseline
once you get past the article reporting, original study lives at https://geopjr.dev/blog/democratizing-abandonware
author provides no repo/code, but describes methodology
i run a 95% autonomous claude code session to re-run the experiment
after all, since he pulls pr/repo data for ai slop, I can just pull all data (not just ai slop) in the same time period and compare
https://github.com/rufasterisco/slopware
1
"ai slop prs/repos" starting numbers mostly match (120 to 199)
i only tested prs from github repos, bringing it down from 119 to 116
still, based on those numbers, looks like we are off by a neat 25%
could be different methodology or claude making mistakes
author mentions doing some manual cleanup
│ │ Original │ Ours │
│ Unique repos │ 120 │ 116 │
│ Maintained │ 32 (27%) │ 58 (50%) │
│ Abandoned │ 88 (73%) │ 58 (50%) │
2 given the above, this is what comparison to "baseline" looks like
as said, "baseline" here means PRs in the same period
│ │ AI Slop │ Baseline │
│ GitHub repos │ 116 │ 332 │
│ deleted / 404 │ 11.2% │ 4.8% │
│ ≥3mo stale (surviving)│ 43.7% │ 39.2% │
│ abandoned (total) │ 50.0% │ 42.2% │ │ alive │ 50.0% │ 57.8% │
post "github fetch" data lives in repo
if you want to run from zero, the repo has the scripts
it will download 600+ MB from github
i agree with your point: "we" always wrote code and abandoned it
the claim here is made against flatpak submissions, which involve pr reviews
i think a point being missed is that open source has always written code that was going to be reused by corps, but PRs in it were likely to help humans join open source, and develop coding skills
now they likely just provide RLFH to corps
What is apparently noteworthy now is that anyone can now have the ability to build and abandon a project just like Real Programmers do
If they're to be trated as disposable, then they should be treated as disposable