[georgehotz]

Author here. I have never said that phrase before this blog post and certainly understand the absurdity of it. I certainly don't mean that you need something biological or whatever consciousness might or might not be.

However there's still a distinction. Unless I'm responding to an LLM, you had a childhood. You learned about the world and space and agency before you ever learned how to program. And you didn't learn it from billions of examples, you learned from a few examples, some self directed experiments, some feedback from teachers, etc...

I'm saying that's what matters. The process matters. You didn't learn to mimic a distribution, you learned to program. Of course in the perfect mathematical limit it's the same, but in practice it's not.

[wyager]

This description falls apart for two reasons

1. It only accurately describes pre-training 2. It ignores the existence of generalization

Next token prediction is just a training task, not "what the model does internally" in any meaningful sense

[extr]

For a lot (most) of what we do with programming, the process actually doesn't matter. I understand you are a real ass dude who is in this shit for the love of the game. I respect that. You are a true artisan and exist in a kind of rarified space. There will always be a place for people like you and in some senses you are correct - you are not replaceable by any AI as they currently function today.

However, 99.9999% of coding is not like that. Non-coders don't care about the code at all. They just care about outcomes. People don't care if it's "slop" if it works. Similar to bug prevalence, the optimal level of slop is not zero and will be decided by the market, not by coders.

[rvz]

LLMs are even more useful to experts who know the limitations. However the process matters even more if you want to build robust and scalable secure systems that generate millions of dollars and can explain that accurately to high value clients.

I do not want a $10M - $100M dollar issue (lawsuits) because I admitted that I don't understand why a breach happened after using a coding agent. Responsiblity and reputation can't be vibe-coded.

So:

> However, 99.9999% of coding is not like that. Non-coders don't care about the code at all. They just care about outcomes. People don't care if it's "slop" if it works. Similar to bug prevalence, the optimal level of slop is not zero and will be decided by the market, not by coders.

There's a vast difference between code that works as a prototype vs how it works in production. I don't think you would trust anyone with no experience to fly a commercial plane with them vibe-coding a flight simulator without knowing the process of becoming a pilot.

But since "it works", it is ok right?