It's usually easier to build something that maintain it for extended periods of time, particularly if that maintenance requires adding new features.

> So LLMs are good enough to make personal software, but not good enough to maintain them?

I mean... yes?

Maintaining software means looking at issues opened on github, keeping your own list of feature requests and bug fixes, deciding if and what to fix, deciding when to fix, and if you're lucky/cursed, reviewing PRs from randos. ANY of this means diverting attention from your day job/client work/kids/???.

Can some of this be theoretically automated by an LLM? Uh, maybe? But I'm not sure how much that would help.

Less about the capabilities of LLM software, but more about my willingness to spend time to deploy them, debug them, etc.

I don't want to spend time on dealing with change. Hence why I'd rather purchase tools, where I pay for the developer to a) prepare for any maintenance, and b) will perform the maintenance needed.

(Of course, the maintainability of software with current generation LLMs depends a lot on how well your architecture them. I've got pure vibe coded slop, that can be very difficult to wrangle.)