|
|
|
|
|
by lnenad
406 days ago
|
|
> The analogy with "monkeys with knives" is apt. A sharp knife is a useful tool, but you wouldn't hand it to an unexperienced person (a monkey) incapable of understanding the implications of how knives cut. Could an experienced person/dev vibe code? > "Obviously working" how? Do you mean prototypes and toy examples? How will these people put something robust and reliable in production, ever? You really don't think AI could generate a working CRUD app which is the financial backbone of the web right now? > If you meant for fun & experimentation, I can agree. Though I'd say vibe coding is not even good for learning because it actively encourages you not to understand any of it (or it stops being vibe coding, and turns into something else). It's that what you're advocating as "obviously working"? I think you're purposefully reducing the scope of what vibe coding means to imply it's a fire and forget system. |
|
Sure, but why? They already paid the price in time/effort of becoming experienced, why throw it all away?
> You really don't think AI could generate a working CRUD app which is the financial backbone of the web right now?
A CRUD? Maybe. With bugs and corner cases and scalability problems. A robust system in other conditions? Nope.
> I think you're purposefully reducing the scope of what vibe coding means to imply it's a fire and forget system.
It's been pretty much described like that. I'm using the standard definition. I'm not arguing against LLM-assisted coding, which is a different thing. The "vibe" of vibe coding is the key criticism.