[inigyou]

> I'm saying using those as analogous/similar comparison points displays an absolutely bonkers lack of decorum, nuanced thinking, or "democratic" behaviour and also trivializes those actually horrendous cases.

Are they correct? That should be the most important thing.

> More worrisome is I saw this same set of comparisons made over and over in multiple threads.

Maybe because they're correct

> because people legitimately wanted to know if their projects were going to be voted off the island.

Thus outing themselves as AI projects. Nobody with a non-AI project doesn't know that it's non-AI.

[rpdillon]

Good grief. The question is simply "what is vibecoding?" You're taking the position (without saying so) that any use of AI in coding is banned: from Cursor autocomplete to full omp harness chugging with Fable, whether or not the person has taken decades to learn coding, whether or not the code was reviewed professionally.

I suspect the reason you're not saying this is because when you write it out, it's obviously a policy rooted in simplistic thinking, similar to "We won't host code if it was written in Emacs" or "We won't host code if it uses spaces instead of tabs."

[hananova]

No, the question is a classic case of jaqing off. Not a single person is in actual doubt which side of the line they fall on.

Your second paragraph is a strawman.

[rpdillon]

Not true. I have no idea if the "majority" of my recent projects was authored by AI. It's a hodge-podge that I've assembled by tweaking things myself, deleting wrong tracks, implementing touchy logic myself, and had AI do lots of boilerplate, over hundreds of commits and thousands of back and forth interactions.

In world where we cannot copyright facts, but we can copyright compendiums, we've demonstrated that we acknowledge the effort and value of curation. The way I use AI, I'm carefully curating what makes it into the released version, either by writing it myself or iterating with an AI to get it written.

You're just being dismissive.

[inigyou]

Did you read the actual terms? It's quite clear, it says mostly written by AI.

[rpdillon]

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything in a world of agentic tooling. That's why folks are seeking clarification of what "mostly" means. Like more than 50% of the characters in the source code? From a harness? Tab-based autocomplete? Function completion? As I said, it's simplistic thinking.

[inigyou]

If you aren't sure, then you're on the wrong side of it.

[rpdillon]

That's not true just because you say it is. You're rejecting the notion that the rule is written badly, and as an excuse for other problems, and, as written, is actually unenforceable. If I pushed my repos, they wouldn't even be able to tell that the code was written by AI, because I author every commit. Silly argument. Time will judge.

[inigyou]

If you were on the right side of it, you'd know.

[cmrdporcupine]

Right, I see I'm dealing with a fundamentalist.

I'll move on now.