This highlights a key problem with this technology: Because generating this content costs nothing (in terms of human effort) to produce, it has no value.

It makes better-than-LLM quality expensive and bottlenecked in comparison. This creates incentives to shift to quantity over quality, and to find ways to make do with buggy code.

I think LLMs will turn software into #houseplants - every user will have a slightly different clone, grow it, kill it, start a new one.

Maintainers don't want LLM code. Too much to review, too little value, merge headache. For users incentive to submit is also low: very slow process, with low chance of success. But an LLM can keep reimplementing their pet feature.

A maintainer can't trust that the person submitting a PR has properly reviewed the code, so they have to do all the review work anyway. There's zero benefit. If the maintainer wanted LLM-generated code, they could ask an LLM themselves, and skip the trust issues and slowness of dealing with a random middleman submitting it.

Something's gonna break.