Automatic Programming

> I'm a programmer, and I use automatic programming. The code I generate in this way is mine. My code, my output, my production. I, and you, can be proud.

Disagree.

So when there is a bug / outage / error, due to "automatic programming" are you ready to be first in line to accept accountability (the LLM cannot be) when it all goes wrong in production? I do not think that would even be enough or whether this would work in the long term.

No excuses like "I prompted it wrong" or "Claude missed something" or "I didn't check over because 8 other AI agents said it was "absolutely right"™".

We will then have lots of issues such as this case study [0] where everything seemingly looks fine at first, all tests pass but in production, the logic was misinterpreted by the LLM with a wrong keyword, [0] during a refactor.

[0] https://sketch.dev/blog/our-first-outage-from-llm-written-co...

>> are you ready to be first in line to accept accountability

I'm accountable for the code i push to production. I have all the power and agency in this scenario, so i am the right person to be accountable for what's in my PR / CL.

This is a classic false dichotomy. Vibe coding, automatic coding and coding is clearly on a spectrum. And I can employ all the shades during a single project.

> Pre-training is, actually, our collective gift that allows many individuals to do things they could otherwise never do, like if we are now linked in a collective mind, in a certain way.

The question is if you can have it all? Can you get faster results and still be growing your skills. Can we 10x the collective mind knowledge with use of AI or we need to spend a lot of time learning the old wayTM to move the industry forward.

Also nobody needs to justify what tools they are using. If there is a pressure to justify them, we are doing something wrong.

Not that I necessarily disagree with any of it, but one word comes to mind as I read through it: “copium”