[1718627440]

> You don't _have_ to turn you brain off when coding with an LLM. It's not some intelligence dementor. If your brain turned off while you were vibe coding

You have too, because that's the definition of vibe coding. If you use an LLM to assist you, but still keep your brain on, that's not vibe coding.

[zeroxfe]

> because that's the definition of vibe coding.

That's _your_ definition of vibe coding.

[danlitt]

> Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists"

If that's not "turning your brain off", what is?

[1718627440]

That's the definition I am aware of, yes. It's also in the term, that you let a vibe (a force coming from the outside) decide what your work lead to, as opposed as to deciding where it should arrive at and leading into that direction.

[freedomben]

What is your definition? Is there any difference between AI assisted development and vibe coding to you?

[jubilanti]

Feels like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[pdpi]

There's multiple ways to program using LLMs, so using different words for different styles is a useful distinction.

Of course, you absolutely can build a No True Scotsman argument on top of that distinction, but I don't think that's what GP was doing.

[1718627440]

How so?

The property Scotsman is existing a priori and then a causality to behaviour is assumed. But here the term is defined by behaviour.

[danlitt]

By that logic every appeal to the truth is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[alostpuppy]

I agree. It’s actually more exhausting in some ways.