[rebolek]

This is very shortsighted and it’s like polishing gun to shoot your foot with it.

If it’s "take it home OSS" and "there is not much need to submit PRs or issues" then why would anybody submit PRs and issues for "for critical bugs or security fixes"? If they have fix and it works for them, they’re fine, afterall.

And while we’re at it, why would anybody share anything? It’s just too much hassle. People will either complain or don’t bother at all.

I think that after few years, when LLM coding would be an old boring thing everybody’s used to and people will learn few hard lessons because of not sharing, we’ll come to some new form of software collaboration because it’s more effective than thinking me and LLM are better than me and LLM and thousands or millions people and LLMs.

[pabs3]

> why would anybody share anything

Before LLMs, it was cheaper in the long run; by upstreaming your patches you don't have to rebase them continually and sometimes the community will maintain the code for you. OTOH sometimes you might need to work on the code again though as other parts of the project evolve if the project is likely to throw out unmaintained code; this is especially true in the Linux kernel where internal APIs change constantly, but upstream maintenance is probably cheaper than continually backporting security fixes to your stable/LTS/SLTS or completely dead versions.

With LLMs the costs might be different but will still exist.

[fc417fc802]

> then why would anybody submit PRs and issues for "for critical bugs or security fixes"?

Why do they do that at present? There are plenty of cases where it's a hassle but people still do it, presumably out of a sense of common decency.

[tonyarkles]

> common decency

Another self-serving reason is so that you can upgrade in the future without having to worry about continually pulling your own private patch set forward.

[kajaktum]

I think people do that because they are closely involved with the code/plumbing. If they spend a week fixing a bug, they feel the weight of the changes that they made with every line that they wrote. If they just fixed the issue in passing and moved on to the next thing, I don't know if they would feel the same weight to contribute back.

More often than not, LLMs fixes an issue as a downstream user. So there's even less pressure to fix the issue. Because if library A does not work on Windows, it would just use mash together library B and C and something from itself to fix the work around it.