[JKCalhoun]

I feel comfortable calling a lot of the comments gatekeeping "adjacent".

When a post is a "warning" about user's credit cards etc. and it was in none of the "vibe coding" examples, that feels like someone deflecting (but with a gate keeping mindset).

As others have said here, I too have knocked out little apps and sites vibin'. At first (1) it was to see if what everyone was saying about LLMs was true. Then (2) I wanted to see if LLMs could help in languages I was not familiar with. Then, even for languages I knew well enough, I (3) wanted to see an LLM's code to get the modern method of modularization for the language (JavaScript is one that has gone through phases). Finally I came to trust the machine and (4) have vibed code just for my own small projects.

[Capricorn2481]

Because people who admit they don't understand coding should not be coding with important data. And it's very easy for you app to suddenly have important data. Do you have auth? You have PII.

Gatekeeping is restricting access to the trade with arbitrary precedence, like "real coders use emacs." It's not expecting safety. If someone wants to build a bridge out of cotton the city won't let them. That isn't what most people consider gatekeeping.

[itishappy]

What's stopping said people from grafting together a few Stack Overflow answers today?

[camdenreslink]

Grafting together stack overflow answers requires knowledge of how your chosen programming language and execution environment work. There is at least some floor of knowledge required to synthesize those answers into a working solution.

Vibe coders as described in the OP can just copy/paste exactly what the LLM spits out with much less knowledge. It’s not the same thing at all IMO.

[itishappy]

I don't see a major difference in a 20% working knowledge of a language vs 0% if the output works. Neither are writing provably correct code, and that's often fine! Many of the engineers at my company (not a software company) write terrible terrible code using the Stack Overflow method, but our manufacturing line still runs.

[camdenreslink]

20% knowledge could be enough to fix errors yourself. E.g. this function name has a typo, or this calculation looks wrong, or this code has been repeated verbatim 40 times, maybe it should be a function, or why did the LLM change this totally unrelated area of the code?

If you only take exactly what the LLM spits out you can only verify by running. If it is broken in edge cases you can only prompt the LLM to fix. You then have to run the code again to verify the fix, and with zero understanding it may have broken some other edge case (LLMs do this all the time especially overly eager reasoning models).

[itishappy]

> 20% knowledge could be enough to fix errors yourself.

It might be, it might not. My colleagues and I are also guilty of introducing unrelated edge cases, but again, we do fine.

The case you're describing is also fairly pathological. There's nothing stopping a vibe coder from digging into their code and becoming a 20% monster like me.