[fragmede]

I think we are. I'm helping somebody who has a non-technical background and taught himself how to vibe code and built a thing. The code is split into two GitHub repos when it should have been one, and one of the repos is named hetzner-something because that's what he's using and he "doesn't really understand tech shit"

[ChrisMarshallNY]

That sounds a lot like “twiddling knobs at random,” to me.

[lebuin]

Exactly. The fact that an LLM isn't very good at helping you fix basic organizational issues like this is emblematic. Quoting the article: "We have automated coding, but not software engineering."

[fragmede]

> Sometimes, they would have a hit, but they wasted a lot of energy on dead ends.

We'll see which one it is in a few months.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Common sense.

If you can use an imperfect tool, perfectly, you’ll beat people using them imperfectly. As long as the tool is imperfect, you won’t have much competition.

That’s where we are, right now. Good engineers are learning how to use klunky LLMs. They will beat out the Dunning-Kruger crew.

Once the tool becomes perfect, then that allows less-technical users into the tent, which means a much larger pool of creativity.