"Hell is other people's code" Not sure why we'd want a tool that generates so much of this for us.
It can be told just as easily to delete code. It can generate instructions to remove lines.
Breaking the spell of vibe coding
111–120 of 375 posts
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#112>Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei predicted that by late 2025, AI would be writing 90% of all code
Was this actually a failed prediction? A article claiming with 0 proof that it failed is not good enough for me. With so many people generating 100% of their code using AI. It seems true to me.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#113I think it all boils down to, which is higher risk, using AI too much, or using AI too little? Right now I see the former as being hugely risky. Hallucinated bugs, coaxed into dead-end architectures, security concerns, not being familiar with the code when a bug shows up in production, less sense of ownership, less hands-on learning, etc. This is true both at the personal level and at the business level. (And astound…
It's very interesting to me how many people presume that if you don't learn how to vibecode now you'll never ever be able to catch up. If the models are constantly getting better, won't these tools be easier to use a year from now? Will model improvements not obviate all the byzantine prompting strategies we have to use today?
Yup, this is why even though I like ai coding a lot, and am pretty enthusiastic about it, and have fun tinkering with it, and think it will stick around and become part of everyday proper software development practice (with guardrails in place), I at least don't go telling people they need to learn it now or they'll be obsolete or whatever. Sitting back and seeing how this all works out — nobody really knows imo, I could be wrong too! — is a valid choice and if ai does stick around you can just hop in when the landscape is clearer!
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#114> However, it is important to ask if you want to stop investing in your own skills because of a speculative prediction made by an AI researcher or tech CEO. I don't think these are exclusive. Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post about this [0]. I spent the time since then both learning better software design and learning to vibe code. I've worked through Domain-Driven Design Distilled , Domain-Driven Design , Imple…
I personally found out that knowing how to use ai coding assistants productively is a skill like any other and a) it requires a significant investment of time b) can be quite rewarding to learn just as any other skill c) might be useful now or in the future and d) doesn't negate the usefulness of any other skills acquired on the past nor diminishes the usefulness of learning new skills in the future
The addictive nature of the technology persists though. So even if we say certain skills are required to use it, then also it must come with a warning label and avoided by people with addictive personalities/substance abuse issues etc.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#115i used to lose hours each day to typos, linting issues, bracket-instead-of-curly-bracket, 'was it the first parameter or the second parameter', looking up accumulator/anonymous function callback syntax AGAIN... idk what ya'll are doing with AI, and i dont really care. i can finally - fiiinally - stay focused on the problem im trying to solve for more than 5 minutes.
With all due respect, but if you actually wasted hours (multiple) each (!) day on those issues, then yeah, I can fully believe that AI assisted coding 10 or even 100x'd you.
I uncharitably snarked that AI lets the 0.05X programmers become 0.2X ones, but reading this stuff makes me feel like I was too charitable.
I've never had problems with any of those things after I learned what a code editor was.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#116I think it all boils down to, which is higher risk, using AI too much, or using AI too little? Right now I see the former as being hugely risky. Hallucinated bugs, coaxed into dead-end architectures, security concerns, not being familiar with the code when a bug shows up in production, less sense of ownership, less hands-on learning, etc. This is true both at the personal level and at the business level. (And astound…
It's very interesting to me how many people presume that if you don't learn how to vibecode now you'll never ever be able to catch up. If the models are constantly getting better, won't these tools be easier to use a year from now? Will model improvements not obviate all the byzantine prompting strategies we have to use today?
[deleted]
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#117It's astonishing to me that real software developers have considered it a good idea to generate code... and not even look at the code . I would have thought sanity checking the output to be the most elementary next step.
I wonder if this phenomenon comes from how reliable lower layers have become. For example, I never check the binary or ASM produced by my code, nor even intermediate byte code. So vibers may be assuming the AI is as reliable, or at least can be with enough specs and attempts.
I have seen enough compiler (and even hardware) bugs to know that you do need to dig deeper to find out why something isn't working the way you thought it should. Of course I suspect there are many others who run into those bugs, then massage the code somehow and "fix" it that way.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this phenomenon comes from how reliable lower layers have become. For example, I never check the binary or ASM produced by my code, nor even intermediate byte code. So vibers may be assuming the AI is as reliable, or at least can be with enough specs and attempts.
I have seen enough compiler (and even hardware) bugs to know that you do need to dig deeper to find out why something isn't working the way you thought it should. Of course I suspect there are many others who run into those bugs, then massage the code somehow and "fix" it that way.
Yeah, I know they exist in lower layers. Though layers being mostly deterministic (hardware glitches aside) I think they are relatively easy to rely on. Whereas LLMs seem to have an element of intentional randomness built into every prompt response.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#119I think it all boils down to, which is higher risk, using AI too much, or using AI too little? Right now I see the former as being hugely risky. Hallucinated bugs, coaxed into dead-end architectures, security concerns, not being familiar with the code when a bug shows up in production, less sense of ownership, less hands-on learning, etc. This is true both at the personal level and at the business level. (And astound…
> my best ideas often happen when knee deep in some codebase
I notice that I get into this automatically during AI-assisted coding sessions if I don't lower my standards for the code. Eventually, I need to interact very closely with both the AI and the code, which feels similar to what you describe when coding manually.
I also notice I'm fresher because I'm not using many brainscycles to do legwork- so maybe I'm actually getting into more situations where I'm getting good ideas because I'm tackling hard problems.
So maybe the key to using AI and staying sharp is to refuse to sacrifice your good taste.
Re: Breaking the spell of vibe coding
#120That AI would be writing 90% of the code at Anthropic was not a "failed prediction". If we take Anthropic's word for it, now their agents are writing 100% of the code: https://fortune.com/2026/01/29/100-percent-of-code-at-anthro... Of course you can choose to believe that this is a lie and that Anthropic is hyping their own models, but it's impossible to deny the enormous revenue that the company is generating via th…
It's not entirely surprising. You can prompt the AI to write code to pretty much any level of detail. You can tell it exactly what to output and it will copy character for character.
Of course at a certain point, you have to wonder if it would be faster to just type it than to type the prompt.
Anyways, if this was true in the sense they are trying to imply, why does Boris still have a job? If the agents are already doing 100% of the work, just have the product manager run the agents. Why are they actively hiring software developers??