Really? I got “if you don’t understand the code you’re producing, then that’s a real problem, not just for you but for software development as a whole”.
Hey, I don’t fucking know, I’m not a coder. Maybe people were blindly copy-pasting StackOverflow code into their projects and just hoping it worked well enough. It seems to me LLM’s make it easier to write working but dangerous code (this article also seems to say this), and I’m not sure making dangerous code easier to produce is a good idea.
But whatever, again, I’m not a coder, I just wanted to push back a little on your extremely uncharitable reading of an article you don’t like.
Ok? I think you’re having a fight with someone who isn’t me! I’m really just trying to say that your reading of the article about vibe coding is extremely uncharitable. The author didn’t seem, to me, like someone who is against making stuff easier for people, but instead someone with worries about whether LLM’s might actually be dangerous.
You can disagree about their danger (you clearly do), but I’m unqualified to speak to their danger (I’m not a coder), and so that aspect of the matter isn’t something I’m eager to discuss, and isn’t something I’ve tried to discuss. All I’ve said is that I think your dismissal of the author of the article as someone who won’t be satisfied until everyone is coding in assembly is wildly off-base.
My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn’t be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.
The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.
the point is not to let ourselves be replaced by AIs, but to use them to improve ourselves and our productivity
My take:
The role of the programmer is ultimately to solve the problems. There are many ways to skin the cat. The better solutions comes from the better programmers.
Bosses under capitalism have less understanding of the pros/cons of a particular solution. Hence they will often use their decision making powers to choose the quick solution rather than the best.
I mean that’s been the case all along, that’s why most software is janky. The problem isn’t technology itself, it’s capitalist relations and the way technology ends up being applied as a result.
There are bugs in every system. AI will just create different types of bugs. It’s the nature of technology.
The hype money being thrown at AI is making the F35 of software out of this shit though. Big Tech accumulated so much cash and had nothing to throw it at after VR didn’t take off.
If you’re not coding in assembly you’re not a real programmer vibes there.
Really? I got “if you don’t understand the code you’re producing, then that’s a real problem, not just for you but for software development as a whole”.
Ah yes, because cargo cult coding totally wasn’t a thing before LLMs showed up.
Hey, I don’t fucking know, I’m not a coder. Maybe people were blindly copy-pasting StackOverflow code into their projects and just hoping it worked well enough. It seems to me LLM’s make it easier to write working but dangerous code (this article also seems to say this), and I’m not sure making dangerous code easier to produce is a good idea.
But whatever, again, I’m not a coder, I just wanted to push back a little on your extremely uncharitable reading of an article you don’t like.
I’m am a coder, and I’ve been doing this professionally for over two decades now. I don’t think LLMs play any actual role here.
Ok? I think you’re having a fight with someone who isn’t me! I’m really just trying to say that your reading of the article about vibe coding is extremely uncharitable. The author didn’t seem, to me, like someone who is against making stuff easier for people, but instead someone with worries about whether LLM’s might actually be dangerous.
You can disagree about their danger (you clearly do), but I’m unqualified to speak to their danger (I’m not a coder), and so that aspect of the matter isn’t something I’m eager to discuss, and isn’t something I’ve tried to discuss. All I’ve said is that I think your dismissal of the author of the article as someone who won’t be satisfied until everyone is coding in assembly is wildly off-base.
My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn’t be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.
The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.
I don’t think that was their vibes.
From article:
My take:
The role of the programmer is ultimately to solve the problems. There are many ways to skin the cat. The better solutions comes from the better programmers.
Bosses under capitalism have less understanding of the pros/cons of a particular solution. Hence they will often use their decision making powers to choose the quick solution rather than the best.
I mean that’s been the case all along, that’s why most software is janky. The problem isn’t technology itself, it’s capitalist relations and the way technology ends up being applied as a result.
There are bugs in every system. AI will just create different types of bugs. It’s the nature of technology.
The hype money being thrown at AI is making the F35 of software out of this shit though. Big Tech accumulated so much cash and had nothing to throw it at after VR didn’t take off.
Then we get Skynet.
AI is just a tool, and what bugs end up in software is solely dependent on the person using the tool.