The clear reason this has worth is that it's much faster than TSC.
No more joy crafting things as a dev…!
1. A person building alternatives to photoshop single handedly: https://gizmodo.com/someone-vibe-coded-a-free-knockoff-of-ad...
2. The abundance of game decomps and recomps becoming available. Literally dozens of example in this space.
3. Reverse engineering of obscure software. A ton of oppertunities lie here.
4. As this posts indicate, severely accelerating existing software by re-writing it in language that are not terrible for performance.
5. Analyzing large volumes of unstructured information.
6. Creating one-off engineering and scientific tools.
7. Beating essentially all traditional Linux distribution, see Omarchy.
8. A personal example: I'm remaking the engine of an old game commercial game in rust.
I'm honestly a bit taken aback that this question is even asked. The volume of software is exploding and the power of the individual has increased a hundredfold.
My thought was LLMs accelerate the best and worst of development, but what couldn’t be done (outside of a large lab or company) by regular humans with an infinite time scale?
You don’t need an LLM for that, just some dedicated time for it. Also your phrasing needs a lot of work. I recommend the Dale Carnegie books on communicating with others.
> It’s just a less maintained, less tested implementation
Then they asked if it teaches something because it is a risky utility to them. You're trying to make it sound a lot weirder.
Definitely not. They said they don't feel good using it because it's less maintained and less tested. They mentioned "we can't learn from it" to provide an example of a secondary benefit that this project could but (arguably) doesn't have. In other words, they had a pretty good reason not use this and didn't see much value if they couldn't use it.
You made it sound like they had some ultra extreme view that software is only valuable if you can learn from it.