Vibe Coding endangers the material basis for open-source projects

The ever-increasing use of Vibe Coding endangers the Open-Source Principle (OSS). Many OSS developers are motivated solely by direct interaction with and feedback from the community. However, what made Open-Source great is increasingly absent due to Vibe Coding.

This is the conclusion of the study “Vibe Coding Kills Open Source” by the Central European University (CEU), Bielefeld University, and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. “Our most important finding is that under traditional OSS business models, where those responsible primarily monetize direct user engagement (higher visibility leading to paid opportunities or other forms of recognition), a greater spread of Vibe Coding reduces OSS offerings and lowers well-being.”

Its authors see this as a call to action and propose solutions. One is to switch to a paid open-source model that distributes revenue to maintainers and contributors.

High Traffic, Low Engagement

The study, conducted by four economists, names the CSS framework Tailwind CSS as an example of one of many projects affected by the vibe-coding boom. It quotes its provider as saying that while Tailwind is more popular than ever in terms of download numbers, traffic to Tailwind docs has decreased by 40 percent compared to 2023 and revenue by almost 80 percent.

To investigate the impact of Vibe Coding on OSS, the researchers created a model of the open-source ecosystem based on underlying economic principles. The result: Vibe Coding reduces software development costs and increases productivity on the one hand. On the other hand, however, it weakens demand in terms of user engagement, and thus the public good aspect behind Open Source. “The central finding of the model is a race between these two channels.”

Since it is no longer primarily humans, but AI, that interacts with OSS repositories, the participatory component is largely eliminated. For OSS maintainers who are exclusively motivated by this, the quality and availability of OSS code deteriorates as a result.

Given the increasing popularity of Vibe Coding, the status quo of the OSS ecosystem could only be maintained if the value creation model for OSS maintainers were fundamentally rethought. “The solution is not to slow down the adoption of AI: the benefits are too great and the technology too useful. The solution is to redesign the business models and institutions that allow value to flow back to OSS maintainers,” for example, through paid offerings.

As AI-assisted programming becomes increasingly prevalent, such a discussion is likely unavoidable.

(afl)