[falcojr]

You do realize that it's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself to ensure it's valid, right? I usually try to strip the pointless comments, but it's not the end of the world if people leave them in.

[simlevesque]

Yeah but you're leaving out a crucial part: the code is full of useless comments.

That leaves 2 options:

- they didn't read the code themselves to ensure it's valid

- they did read the code themselves but left the useless comments

No matter which happened it shows they're a bad developer and I don't want to run their code.

[rustman123]

The comments aren’t the problem.

[Mechanical9]

IMO reading code is usually harder than writing code.

[sgammon]

> I usually try to strip the pointless comments

You could add your own instead, explaining how things work?

> It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself

Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding.

[cbsmith]

>> It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself

> Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding.

Wait, what?

[the_af]

Vibe-coding as originally defined (by Karpathy?) implied not reading the code at all, just trying it and pasting back any error codes; repeat ad infinitum until it works or you give up.

Now the term has evolved into "using AI in coding" (usually with a hint of non rigor/casualness), but that's not what it originally meant.

[sgammon]

AI assisted coding/engineering becomes "vibe coding" when you decide to abdicate any understanding of what you are building, instead focusing only on the outcome

[cbsmith]

This feels like a silly semantics argument, but how is the outcome not what you are building?