[biker142541]

Can we please stop using 'vibe coding' to mean 'ai assisted coding'?? (best breakdown, imo: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/19/vibe-coding/)

Is it really vibe coding if you are building a detailed coding plan, conducting "git-based experimentation with ruthless pruning", and essentially reviewing the code incrementally for correctness and conciseness? Sure, it's a process dependent on AI, but it's very far from nearly "forget[ing] that the code even exists".

That all said, I do think the article captures some of the current cost/quality dilemmas. I wouldn't jump to conclusions that these incentives are actually driving most current training decisions, but it's an interesting area to highlight.

[Ancapistani]

There should be a distinction, but I don't think it's really clear where it is yet.

In my own usage, I tend to alternate between tiny, well-defined tasks and larger-scale, planned architectural changes or new features. Things in between those levels are hit and miss.

It also depends on what I'm building and why. If it's a quick-and-dirty script for my own use, I'll often write up - or speak - a prompt and let it do its thing in the background while I work on other things. I care much less about code quality in those instances.

[codr7]

It's still gambling, you're trading learning/reinforcing for efficiency, which in the long run means losing skills.

[bigfishrunning]

"Vibe coders" say they're 'building a detailed coding plan, conducting "git-based experimentation with ruthless pruning", and essentially reviewing the code incrementally for correctness and conciseness', but really they're just rolling the dice and hoping everything works. The software industry has always been full of snake oil, and now there's a powerful new strain.

[Animats]

"Vibe coding" is a trend.[1]

[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22vibe%20...

[parliament32]

This reads like "is it really gambling when I have a many-step system for predicting roulette outcomes?"