I Am Not a Reverse Centaur
blog.miguelgrinberg.com
June 12, 2026
9 min read
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
61/100
Summary
Open source projects have seen an increase in contributions, with nearly all new contributions now being made using large language models (LLMs). The author maintains a consistent view against coding with LLMs despite the growing use in the community.
Key Takeaways
- The author has observed an increase in contributions to their open source projects, with most now generated by LLMs.
- Unsolicited pull requests (PRs) from contributors using LLMs are viewed negatively, as they often lack genuine consideration for the project.
- The author has implemented a contribution guideline requiring prior discussion before submitting PRs to ensure meaningful contributions.
- PRs that do not demonstrate human involvement are immediately closed by the author, reflecting a rejection of "reverse centaur" work.
Coverage & discussions
Hacker News · blog.miguelgrinberg.com
Community discussions
Hacker News discussion ↗
Historical count: 5 · 5 saved in sample · Historical sample
Analysis ready
Community Sentiment
Positives
- The excitement among non-programmers to create software using LLMs signifies a democratization of technology, allowing more individuals to express their creativity and solve problems.
- LLMs are enabling users to achieve tasks that were previously limited to skilled programmers, fostering a sense of accomplishment and innovation.
- The concept of an ecosystem for shared software features could enhance collaboration and reduce burnout among developers, making open-source contributions more sustainable.
Concerns
- The reliance on LLMs for generating software may lead to a decline in the quality of contributions, as users might not invest the necessary effort in their work.
- Concerns about the trustworthiness of LLM-generated contributions highlight the potential for lower quality and the need for maintainers to sift through less meaningful PRs.
- The introduction of additional friction in the open-source contribution process could deter genuine contributions, complicating the already challenging review process.
