[unshavedyak]

Is that the question? I definitely don't think that's remotely reasonable for someone who can't program. For small things yes, but large things? They're going to get into a spin cycle with the LLM on some edge case it's confused about where they consistently say "the button is blue!" and the bot confirms it is indeed not blue.

It really depends on the area though. Some areas are simple for LLMs, others are quite difficult even if objectively simple.

Granted atm i'm not a big believer in vibe coding in general, but imo it requires quite a bit of knowledge to be hands off and not have it fall into wells of confusion.

[stavros]

That's what I understood from the top-level question, and it's my experience as well. If you don't review the LLM's code, it breaks very quickly. That's why the question for me isn't "how many agents can I run in parallel?", but "how many changes can I review in parallel?".

For me, that's "just one", and that's why LLM coding doesn't scale very far for me with these tools.

[dingnuts]

if you have to understand the code, it's not vibe coding. Karpathy's whole tweet was about ignoring the code.

if you have to understand the code to progress, it's regular fucking programming.

I don't go gushy about code generation when I use yasnippet or a vim macro, why should super autocomplete be different?

this is an important distinction because if Karpathy's version becomes real we're all out of a job, and I'm sick of hearing developers role play publicly towards leaders that their skills aren't valuable anymore

[unshavedyak]

I disagree, i think there's degrees of governance that these concepts cover. It's all subjective of course. For me though, i've "vibe coded" projects (as testing grounds) with minimal review, but still used my programming experience to shape the general architecture and testing practices to what i thought would best fit the LLM.

The question is how much do you review, and how much does your experience help it? Even if you didn't know code you're still going to review the app. Ideally incrementally or else you won't know what's working and what isn't. Reviewing the technical "decisions" from the LLM is just an incremental step towards reviewing every LOC. There's a large gulf between full reviews and no reviews.

Where in that gulf you decide to call it "vibe coding" is up to you. If you only consider it vibing if you never look at the code though, then most people don't vibe code imo.

I think of "vibe coding" as synonymous with "sloppy/lazy coding". Eg you're skipping details and "trusting" that the LLM is either correct or has enough guardrails to be correct in the impl. How many details you skip though is variable, imo.