Why is it "political" to say "I don't trust software fully written by an LLM that has not been vetted by a human"?

That feels like an entirely reasonable stance to take.

And I see the argument/correction downthread that it's an "emotional" or "ideological" stance. Why does it have to be that? It seems completely rational and logical not to trust software written by a technology that is known to hallucinate and "cheat" to make tests pass.

Of course, I can't say that the yt-dlp maintainer is or isn't being political/emotional/ideological when making this decision; none of us can know their true motivations without asking them, and I choose the charitable explanation unless shown evidence otherwise.

> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.

I disagree that this is a political stance. People based on their experiences have formed opinions on whether they trust that model of development or not. Bun having taking extreme measure of going 100% in within a week is itself extreme positioning from their side which will likely result in extreme reactions because depending on who you are and your experience you'd bet on the fact that it may or may not work out.

> Saying "because they vibe coded we are dropping support for Bun" sounds political.

I don't think "political" is necessarily a bad thing. Engaging in politics is how you shape the world. The mere act of writing and maintaining yt-dlp is quite political considering the context of IP law and enforcement that we live in.

It happens that in this case that I'd disagree with their politics if that's why they are dropping Bun support - I think there's a great deal of value in moving to memory safe languages, little harm in accepting anthropic compute and funding to do so, and that use LLMs themselves is roughly value neutral (though many uses are very much not value neutral). That said reasonable people definitely disagree with me.

Vibe-coded code is a code no human has written, so no human truly understands how it works. It's a perfectly reasonable technical decision not to support such software, especially if actual human effoft is required for that

Adding support again later is cheap.

Stopping maintaining and testing support for upcoming versions is cheaper than doing that work.

Sure it’s political but it is also just a sane approach, to stay away from such disruptive change and treat it as wait-and-see instead of tagging along for the ride. There is not really any technical upside to tagging along and promising support.

I disagree it's a political stance, this reads like a technical decision to me. In my opinion, there is no vibe-coded project that's going to be reliable long term. Eventually there's too much code, too many bugs and the whole things slows to a halt. Or it gets too expensive to continue to be vibe-coded, because token cost.

If they had decided to drop Bun for "AI assisted coding," that might strike me as a political decision.

I'm repeating a point I made in a sub-thread but please WHY should the onus be on yt-dlp to review their decision on a project that has zero commitment to review their very code?

I get the idea to "battle-test" the rewrite first but (a) how does one even determine a reasonable timeframe for battle-testing that much LOC and (b) each vibe-coded update pushed to the Bun upstream basically resets the battle-testing timer. I guess you could lag behind $LATEST by a given window but that just brings us back to (a).

That wasn't my read, though. I think if they don't want to go with the vibe-coded version then they have to go with the last release before that. And presumably that last release won't be updated (except with the vibe-coded version). Therefore it makes sense to deprecate.

What's wrong with yt-dlp - an app almost entirety driven by political stances - taking another one regarding llms?

What does "political" mean in this context? To me it seems obvious that yes, that is a political choice, as is every other choice a group of people make for themselves together.

“Vibe coded” means “human programmers did not review the code”. So I think that’s an entirely reasonable line to draw that’s no more political than dropping support for some other project that suddenly decided to drop all unit testing or to refuse to do any security vetting.