[vmasto]

Can you explain why it makes a difference what the answers are?

When using an open source library assumptions should be:

- The code does what it advertises.

- The owner is responsible for the functionality.

- The owner's reputation is based on the quality.

You're making it sound that you're more sure for the above when the code is "hand-written" than LLM-driven. Why exactly? Do you tend to deeply understand the strengths and limitations of every coder whose software you're using in your projects?

As long as the owner is responsible for the quality of a project why does it matter how it was executed?

[latexr]

> Can you explain why it makes a difference what the answers are?

You answered it yourself:

> the owner is responsible for the quality of a project

If you didn’t write, review, or understand the code, then you cannot be responsible for its quality. If you don’t have the skills to write it by hand and understand it, you don’t have to skills to properly address bug reports or understand and prevent malicious submissions.

All of those are legitimate concerns and considerations when deciding if you want to invest your time in a project.

Honestly, if the author had responded “I vibe coded it and didn’t review any of it, but it’s been working for me for <however long>”, that would’ve been fine. It would have been a clear, honest answer that would let everyone decide how they want to proceed.

[stavros]

No, I disagree with the premise, that's why I don't want to answer. I am responsible for the quality of the project by virtue of publishing it, not because I wrote it in a way you agree or disagree with. Your questions are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether my name is on the repo or not.

If I didn't think it's good enough to release, I'd say something like "I vibe-coded this and didn't check it, use at your own peril". How much of the code I understand and how much an LLM wrote is entirely irrelevant.