Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I’m just sharing this because I found it insightful.
The author describes himself as a “fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.
What if I can find it but it’s either shit or bloated for my needs?
Open an issue to explain why it’s not enough for you? If you can make a PR for it that actually implements the things you need, do it?
My point to say everything is already out there and perfectly fits your need, only that a LOT is already out there. If all re-invent the wheel in our own corner it’s basically impossible to learn from each other.
There have been some articles published positing that AI coding tools spell the end for FOSS because everybody is just going to do stuff independently and don’t need to share with each other anymore to get things done.
I think those articles are short sighted, and missing the real phenomenon that the FOSS community needs each other now more than ever in order to tame the LLMs into being able to write stories more interesting than “See Spot run.” and the equivalent in software projects.
And if the maintainer doesn’t agree to merge your changes, what to you do then?
You have to build your own project, where you get to decide what gets added and what doesn’t.
These are the principles I follow:
https://indieweb.org/make_what_you_need
https://indieweb.org/use_what_you_make
I don’t have time to argue with FOSS creators to get my stuff in their projects, nor do I have the energy to maintain a personal fork of someone else’s work.
It’s much faster for me to start up Claude and code a very bespoke system just for my needs.
I don’t like web UIs nor do I want to run stuff in a Docker container. I just want a scriptable CLI application.
Like I just did a subtitle translation tool in 2-3 nights that produces much better quality than any of the ready made solutions I found on GitHub. One of which was an *arr stack web monstrosity and the other was a GUI application.
Neither did what I needed in the level of quality I want, so I made my own. One I can automate like I want and have running on my own server.
So much this. Over the years I have found various issues in FOSS and “done the right thing” submitting patches formatted just so into their own peculiar tracking systems according to all their own peculiar style and traditions, only to have the patches rejected for all kinds of arbitrary reasons - to which I say: “fine, I don’t really want our commercial competitors to have this anyway, I was just trying to be a good citizen in the community. I’ve done my part, you just go on publishing buggy junk - that’s fine.”
So the claim is it’s easier to Claudge a whole new app than to make a personal fork of one that works? Sounds unlikely.
Depends entirely on the app.
Yeah, that’s fair. In a minority of cases, with a certain app and needs to modify it to do your task, it may be true. Still rare.
I don’t know how rare it is today. What I do know is that it’s less rare today than it was 3 months ago, and 3 months ago it was even more rare 3 months before that…