> OK, now do that for 369,293 stars, 76,193 forks, 138 releases and 2,133 contributors.
You're counting forks and stars as code metrics now? Oy.
Look, those aren't nothing -- they're a decent enough proxy for popularity -- but they aren't a rebuttal to the original comment. (The other day some LLM dudebro got a bajillion stars on GH for his vibe-coded hot mess of a repo that sets three environment variables. I should go check the number of commits on that...)
> OpenClaw is a good example of a completely new project written using coding agents that made a significant impression on the world and would not have been built without them. I'm surprised this is a hill I have to die on, but there we are.
The fundamental problem here is that you were asked to provide an example of some software where LLMs have made a revolutionary difference, and OpenClaw is what you chose. That just says a lot, right there.
I don't even really care about that debate, since OpenClaw probably meets the literal requirements of the original question (if not the spirit), and sure, it's had a big splash. But the point of the OP is well-taken: everyone is so "productive", but if the only thing we're seeing from it is Moltbook and 10,001 half-broken pokemon games, then eventually the bloom is going to fall off the rose.
The fact that you felt you had to rebut the "I could do that in a weekend" guy with commit counts is both poetic and oddly fitting for where we are with these things.