[CuriouslyC]

Mostly a good writeup, but I think there's some serious shifting the goalposts of what "vibe coded" means in a disingenuous way towards the end:

'Yes, this does come across as a bit “vibe-coded”, despite what the README says, but so does a lot of code I see written by humans. LLM or not, we have to give a shit.'

If what most people do is "vibe coding" in general, the current definition of vibe coding is essentially meaningless. Instead, the author is making the distinction between "interim workable" and "stainless/battle tested" which is another dimension of code entirely. To describe that as vibe coding causes me to view the author's intent with suspicion.

[croes]

Isn’t vibe coding just C&P from AI instead of Stack Overflow?

I read it as: done by AI but not checked by humans.

[ranguna]

Yep I see it like that as well, code with 0 or very close to 0 interactions from humans. Anyone who wants to change that meaning is not serious.

[techpression]

I find ”vibe coding” to be one of the, if not the, concepts in this business to lose its meaning the fastest. Similar to how everything all of a sudden was ”cloud” now everything is ”vibe coded”, even though reading the original tweet really narrows it down thoroughly.

[dimitri-vs]

IMO it's pretty clear what vibe coding is: you don't look at the code, only the results. If you're making judgement on the code, it's not vibe coding.

[keybored]

Viral marketing campaign term losing its meaning makes sense.

[simonw]

How do you define vibe coding?