> that it's open source makes it more trustworthy not less.
You aren't addressing the point the person you responded to made - people will lose trust because of _quality_, not because the code is available to you on Github. If 90% of open source becomes buggy, single-use software with massive security gaps, it makes sense people would stop trusting those projects.
The recent sprawl of viruses, worms, and malware should give everyone pause when installing fresh software.
Running code is dangerous. I don't really see how its provenance matters: you should not run code you don't trust, period.
This reduces to "you should not use a computer, period." No-one can audit all the code they run daily.
Not sure if you're being manipulative on purpose or if you genuinely did not understand my point. I was talking about "trust", which is a whole concept in itself.
Absolutely yes... The difference between those "22 year old coffee junkies" and some dude prompting an LLM is that the 22 year olds from 10 years ago still had to actually use their brains. They thought of the problem, came up with possible solutions, architecture, software stack, implementation etc... Some of this undoubtedly was copy/paste from stack overflow, but in that process: googled/researched things, read results from google (blog posts, stack overflow posts, maybe even books). And in that process they actually learned about software development and mastered the craft. That isn't a thing with vibe coding, LLM's don't "care" about the project/software they build. Most vibe coders don't even care.
I hate that I have to say this but inevitably people get mad if you don't: I'm not anti ai and LLM's are obviously useful in 2026. But I definitely have way more trust in software made the "old" way, by people who actually gave a shit, compared to software "written by" vibe coders.
The vast majority of software engineers, pre and post LLMs, don’t care.