23
A guy tests vibe-coded Adobe app clones and they just work (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 week ago by vermaterc@lemmy.ml to c/tech@programming.dev
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 14 points 6 days ago

Reposting my relevant comment from yesterday on the Opensource board:

My opinion: this is pointless

LLMs are stochastic regurgitators, but software can already be copy/pasted without cost.

Why should we be interested in an LLM clone of photoshop when there are already clones of photoshop (e.g. https://photopea.com/)?

If I want to use photoshop (or something like it), then I’ll use photoshop (or something like it: i.e. photopea).

There’s literally no point in favour of using the LLM copy, it’s going to have less support and less security (since its training data will have also included prompt injection attacks).

It’s just more of the same, but worse. Even for the sake of argument: if it wasn’t worse, it’d still be more of the same.

I’m not interested in more of the same, I’m interested in things made by people that push the boundaries of what’s possible: (e.g. graphite).

[-] Sina@beehaw.org 3 points 5 days ago

You do realize that Photopea is JS running in your browser right, aka it's slow.

Though I have to admit I'm way more interested in LR clones that are actually good clones.

[-] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago

You do realize that Photopea is JS running in your browser right, aka it’s slow.

Yes I realise it's running in a browser.

No it's not slow.

It's running 5mb of web assembly, so unless running regular photoshop is using more than 50% of your CPU, you're not going to notice any slowdowns.

The only time you're going to notice a slow down is if the thing you're doing would already be annoying slow in photoshop (e.g. opening >500mb non-raw files, in which case it being slow in a browser wouldn't matter since you'd be better off processing the files outside of photoshop anyway).

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca -4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Why should I use software from anybody if I can just have an LLM generate what I want? I don't have to worry about licensing, software becoming paid, getting enshittified or getting abandoned. I can have my own walled garden of my own apps.

[-] ExperimentalGuy@programming.dev 7 points 6 days ago

The assumption of "just generate it" is doing a lot of work. There's a lot of assumptions that an LLM produced program will have the same guarantees that a closed source program has. You don't know about licensing because most courts haven't decided on it yet. The enshittification would most likely happen on the LLM provider end. You also wouldn't get the benefit of other people's eyes on the software. You're getting none of the benefits of open source with the consequences of closed source.

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We're still in the very early days an it's already starting. Give it 5 years and we'll see.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
23 points (62.9% liked)

Tech

3460 readers
3 users here now

A community for high quality news and discussion around technological advancements and changes

Things that fit:

Things that don't fit

Community Wiki

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Vacant@programming.dev