[lelanthran]

The thing is, people already have certain expectations from their software, because it is all around them.

They'd revolt en-masse if their TV had the downtime of github, of if their computer had the number of successful supply chain attacks that npm enjoys.

The quality may not have been good, but the market had stabilised on what the public would accept. AI changes this substantially.

[bdangubic]

it absolutely doesn’t. most software is shitty and buggy. I know, have seen 30 years worth of it. just now we can write the shitty and buggy a lot faster.

ask anyone that has been in the industry for awhile and they will tell you the same thing. a lot of crowd on HN write as if human-written code is any good and while there are always exception, on average, most software is shitty. if I had a dollar for every time I met someone writing software for “X” saying “dude, if you knew what I know you’d never use/do/… X” I’d be a very rich man

[lelanthran]

Most software may be shitty, but users absolutely are not prepared for the level of shittiness we see in vibed projects.

That's what I'm saying: users are used to a certain level of reliability. They might not be so accepting of a decline.

[bdangubic]

example? or this is theoretical?

[lelanthran]

So many, so numerous examples.

But, lets start with the C compiler written by an AI, guided by the comp[any that sells the AI. Do you really think that the average user is eady yet to accept that sort of degradation in quality?

[bdangubic]

C compiler written by AI is used somewhere to compile production code?

[lelanthran]

> C compiler written by AI is used somewhere to compile production code?

That's the point - it isn't used; the quality is too poor to even replace tcc.