The future belongs to those who can refute AI, not just generate with AI

The future belongs to those who can refute AI, not just generate with AI
learningloom.substack.com

For example, there’s a tensor serialization called Tenso (71 stars) which advertises better cache line alignment after array deserialization. I suspect it’s heavily vibe coded. I read its source code and discovered that unlike what the README claims, the arrays it produces aren’t actually 64-byte aligned after all. https://github.com/Khushiyant/tenso/issues/5 They also have some issues around bounds checking: https://github.com/Khushiyant/tenso/issues/4

Another example: there’s a library called protobuf-to-pydantic (145 stars, 21 forks, 4 dependent packages on PyPI). I wanted to use this for one of my projects. I’m not sure whether it’s vibe coded or not. I found that it creates syntax errors in the generated output code: https://github.com/so1n/protobuf_to_pydantic/issues/121 Seems like a pretty surprising issue to miss.

For Tenso, the code quality is less of an issue than the “should this even be built or is the premise of the work solving the wrong problem,” which I suspect will be a factor in a lot of AI-generated work going forward.

I’m torn. On the one hand, I’m glad to be practicing this skill of “deciding what to rely on and what to refute,” but on the other hand, I certainly don’t feel like I’m being collaborative. These libraries could be their creators’ magnum opus for all I know. My issues just generate work for the project maintainers. I offer failing unit tests, but no fixes.

I earnestly think the future belongs to people who are able to “yes, and” in the right way rather than just tearing others’ work down as I’m currently doing. It’s hard to “yes, and” in a way that’s backed by a discerning skepticism rather than uncritiqueful optimism. Feels like a condradiction somehow.

The codebase growth numbers feel right to me. Even conservative 2x productivity gains break most review processes. We ended up having to build our own internal review bot that checks the AI output because human review just doesn't keep up. But it has to be narrow and specific, not another general model doing vibes-based review.

Your criticism looks authentic, based on real study and expertise. I think it is a valuable gift. It is only when such a thing become compulsive that it can fairly be called "tearing down."

Looking at your issues, you are calling out real flaws and even provide repro tests. If I were a maintainer who cared, and not just running a slop-for-stars scheme, I'd be very grateful for the reports.