For one off tools, sure. For ongoing tools, either they are right after the first implementation and you use them for years. Alternatively, you need to maintain them and they decay until you discard them.

You also need to be ok with your tool to do task A (you had an agent build) to work different from my tool to do task A (I had an agent build). Meaning we can’t reliably compare the output from those tools.

Your fallacy is the fallacy of the loaded question.

If anything open source is proving to be the last bastion of hope against the trend of being mindlessly replaced by agents.

Ironically, this article has so many signs of being written by an LLM that I couldn’t finish it.

False premise. AIs dont generate anything in 30 seconds that has been widely reviewed and tested.

If you want it to be corrrct, it's always easier to install some existing OSS and instead focus on whatever is unique to you.

Nothing has been replaced. This is just propaganda by a consultant who explicitly is for hire for AI integrations. He has probably never done anything in open source.

He uses open source and sells it out for cheap marketing. Clients take note.

Why is this on the frontpage again? It's slop writing with a blatantly untrue borderline ragebait premise. Can we please stop this madness? Hacker News doesn't have a downvote feature (for stories), and that absolutely does have its pros and cons, but this needs to stop. This is basically SPAM.

Putting aside the bond I have towards with the FOSS community, I am curious of what will be the new equilibrium of this ecosystem.

"Maybe what’s actually happening here isn’t death or survival, it’s a change of job"

AI sentence structure spills everywhere

As I've been vibe coding a side project, I've been curious on just how much cruft and slop the agents are training on now. A part of me feels like I should actually have it be in a private repo.

What?

Author (which seems like AI) has no idea what open source even means.