i think i understood. your point was that all AI code is shit by definition, which isn’t true. structurally, LLMs are going to produce better output than your average junior dev. but i find it personally insulting when someone submits code that they could barely find the effort to review themselves and expect me to either rubber stamp it or put more effort in to review than they could be bothered to.
no, my point is that “vibe coding” is explicitly about not using your head and just going by “vibes”. It’s innately an excuse for shit code, because you’re not supposed to look at the code at all.
If you’re looking at the code and reviewing it, you’re not doing “vibe coding”.
i mean, i’ve done it. there’s always some sort of review process. and if the process is just “wrong, do it again” without examining any piece of it, you’re going to have a bad time producing anything of real value anyway
if the process is just “wrong, do it again” without examining any piece of it
that’s the definition of vibe coding. It’s a process where you’re supposed to work as if you don’t know how to code and treat the code as magical mumbo-jumbo.
that’s your definition, sure. outputs absolutely have to be checked or the entire thing is objectively pointless, but it’s not. where you want to draw that line is a semantic argument i’m not interested in. but if you submit shit code to my repos and come to me saying, “oh i was vibe coding”, that’s a paddlin
i think i understood. your point was that all AI code is shit by definition, which isn’t true. structurally, LLMs are going to produce better output than your average junior dev. but i find it personally insulting when someone submits code that they could barely find the effort to review themselves and expect me to either rubber stamp it or put more effort in to review than they could be bothered to.
no, my point is that “vibe coding” is explicitly about not using your head and just going by “vibes”. It’s innately an excuse for shit code, because you’re not supposed to look at the code at all.
If you’re looking at the code and reviewing it, you’re not doing “vibe coding”.
i mean, i’ve done it. there’s always some sort of review process. and if the process is just “wrong, do it again” without examining any piece of it, you’re going to have a bad time producing anything of real value anyway
that’s the definition of vibe coding. It’s a process where you’re supposed to work as if you don’t know how to code and treat the code as magical mumbo-jumbo.
that’s your definition, sure. outputs absolutely have to be checked or the entire thing is objectively pointless, but it’s not. where you want to draw that line is a semantic argument i’m not interested in. but if you submit shit code to my repos and come to me saying, “oh i was vibe coding”, that’s a paddlin