Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#221

Post by dwb »

tovej wrote: post #211
estimator7292 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you use an LLM to generate source code you are vibecoding No, you're not. > Are people seriously trying to redefine what vibecoding is? Yes, you are.

No, that is literally vibecoding. Reviewing vibecoded source is just an extra step. It's like saying "I'm not power toolgardening, I use a pair of gardening scissors afterwards." You still did power tool gardening. As additional proof, the dictionary definition of vibe coding is "the use of artificial intelligence prompted by natural language to assist with the writing of computer code" [1] It seems like vibecoders d…

Both you and the Collins dictionary (merely one dictionary, not an absolute anuthority) are retconning. “Vibe coding”, as originally coined in this tweet, means something more specific: to generate code with LLMs and not really look at the output. The term itself suggests this too: reviewing code is not exactly a vibes-based activity, is it?

https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#222

Post by tarsinge »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #205
tarsinge wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are SO past the point of software being developed without LLMs at _all_ That's exactly why I've given up on programming, development or career subreddits. There are a lot of interesting software engineering challenges opening up, but instead of discussing it like professionals it all gets drowned in a big negative mixture of rants against the financial AI bubble, companies using AI as an excuse to lay off, and a…

So you really don't understand why people with real professional experience might be anxious now, and why there is an antiwork vibe? It's not just junior devs.

I understand why they might be anxious, but my point is it’s unrelated to the technology itself. Imagine people denying the internet works in 2000 because of the Dotcom bubble. Same with layoffs, they are not really due to AI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_corporate_m...), it’s a political discussion. And the antiwork vibe is not new, I have strong political convictions on how we should more equally redistribute capital gains so that even if AI was able to replace software engineers it would not be an issue but again that is political.

LLMs tooling brings a lot to senior devs. I have 15 YOE, I own a small agency, we are shipping faster, with less bugs, and believe it or not we are hiring, because we are able to take more work and grow, as it is logical without the political issues plaguing the US in particular. The market is already adjusting, hence why to me we are way past the point of developing professionally without LLMs.

So no I don’t get why the political topics are not discussed elsewhere and the irrational denial of the technology because of said political issues.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#223

Post by southerntofu »

em-bee wrote: post #141
southerntofu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for misinterpreting your original comment. I'm not really convinced there's people who don't like AI "because of what it is". I mean, because of what it is, beyond any social/political considerations. The only case i know of that is when there was an open letter with Sam Altman and other AI investors calling out the existential danger of AI, which in my view was a way to divert the debate from political questio…

really? is it so hard to believe that people dislike AI because it is unreliable, can't be trusted, changes how we work with code, takes the fun out of coding? i am not worried about social consequences. society can adapt. i am also not worried about energy use. we have endless clean energy if we can figure out how to use it. yes, i am worried about society choosing the wrong adaption. that is, i believe we should tr…

Oh, thank you for clarifying! That is entirely believable, and i'm also one of these people then. I just didn't understand what you meant. I thought you meant people hated AI for being creepy alien tech from scifi movies, not for being unreliable, untrustworthy, etc...

Sorry again for the misunderstanding.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#224

Post by tovej »

dwb wrote: post #221
tovej wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is literally vibecoding. Reviewing vibecoded source is just an extra step. It's like saying "I'm not power toolgardening, I use a pair of gardening scissors afterwards." You still did power tool gardening. As additional proof, the dictionary definition of vibe coding is "the use of artificial intelligence prompted by natural language to assist with the writing of computer code" [1] It seems like vibecoders d…

Both you and the Collins dictionary (merely one dictionary, not an absolute anuthority) are retconning. “Vibe coding”, as originally coined in this tweet, means something more specific: to generate code with LLMs and not really look at the output. The term itself suggests this too: reviewing code is not exactly a vibes-based activity, is it? https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

Here's Merriam Webster with the same definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibe%20coding

That tweet coins the term, we agree there. The activity it describes is using natural language to generate software. Whether you add a review process or not doesn't substantially change that. Sure, Karpathy says he doesn't "read the diffs anymore". Why does he say "anymore"? Clearly he was reading them at some point. If not reading any diffs was a core part of the activity, that wouldn't be the case, the tweet itself clearly outlines that as optional. He's clearly not talking about a core part of the activity.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#225

Post by dwb »

tovej wrote: post #224
dwb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both you and the Collins dictionary (merely one dictionary, not an absolute anuthority) are retconning. “Vibe coding”, as originally coined in this tweet, means something more specific: to generate code with LLMs and not really look at the output. The term itself suggests this too: reviewing code is not exactly a vibes-based activity, is it? https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

Here's Merriam Webster with the same definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibe%20coding That tweet coins the term, we agree there. The activity it describes is using natural language to generate software. Whether you add a review process or not doesn't substantially change that. Sure, Karpathy says he doesn't "read the diffs anymore". Why does he say "anymore"? Clearly he was reading them at some po…

I think the tweet is pretty clear on its intention for the definition and I’m not interested in arguing about it.

I do think the dictionary definitions, such as they are, are coming from a real place: some people do use the more general definition. And you seem to already know about both definitions. So why argue so belligerently and definitively in the first place? Parent comments you were replying to were obviously using the original definition. Talking about “retconning” is obviously silly given this timeline. Meaning in language is not a race to be the first to make it into a dictionary. It’s a very new phenomenon that new terms make it so quickly into a dictionary at all, and they’re always under review. So maybe factor that into your commentary?

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#226

Post by tovej »

dwb wrote: post #225
tovej wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's Merriam Webster with the same definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibe%20coding That tweet coins the term, we agree there. The activity it describes is using natural language to generate software. Whether you add a review process or not doesn't substantially change that. Sure, Karpathy says he doesn't "read the diffs anymore". Why does he say "anymore"? Clearly he was reading them at some po…

I think the tweet is pretty clear on its intention for the definition and I’m not interested in arguing about it. I do think the dictionary definitions, such as they are, are coming from a real place: some people do use the more general definition. And you seem to already know about both definitions. So why argue so belligerently and definitively in the first place? Parent comments you were replying to were obviously…

Because I believe the broad definition is more widely used, I also don't think the narrow term is useful or meaningful, and I think it's being used purely by vibe coding practitioners who feel that the term has negative connotations.

This all started with the parent comment telling someone else (belligerently and definitively) using the broader definition that they were wrong.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#227

Post by dwb »

tovej wrote: post #226
dwb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the tweet is pretty clear on its intention for the definition and I’m not interested in arguing about it. I do think the dictionary definitions, such as they are, are coming from a real place: some people do use the more general definition. And you seem to already know about both definitions. So why argue so belligerently and definitively in the first place? Parent comments you were replying to were obviously…

Because I believe the broad definition is more widely used, I also don't think the narrow term is useful or meaningful, and I think it's being used purely by vibe coding practitioners who feel that the term has negative connotations. This all started with the parent comment telling someone else (belligerently and definitively) using the broader definition that they were wrong.

The narrow term is very useful, there is obviously a world of difference between reviewing the output of an LLM and not - the latter is irresponsible. It shouldn’t be surprising that people bristle when being accused of it. It doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of redefining a term to make themselves feel better when the history of the term shows that yours is the redefinition. The simpler explanation is that the accused just doesn’t like being called irresponsible - not that they’re trying to defend LLM code generation from someone who doesn’t like it.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#228

Post by tovej »

dwb wrote: post #227
tovej wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I believe the broad definition is more widely used, I also don't think the narrow term is useful or meaningful, and I think it's being used purely by vibe coding practitioners who feel that the term has negative connotations. This all started with the parent comment telling someone else (belligerently and definitively) using the broader definition that they were wrong.

The narrow term is very useful, there is obviously a world of difference between reviewing the output of an LLM and not - the latter is irresponsible. It shouldn’t be surprising that people bristle when being accused of it. It doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of redefining a term to make themselves feel better when the history of the term shows that yours is the redefinition. The simpler explanation is that the a…

You're saying what I'm saying. They feel self conscious about the term "vibe coding".

And to be clear, nobody accused the people who lashed out here. They reacted to general statements that people are vibe coding.

I also don't understand why the term vibe coding couldn't contain a spectrum of responsible use. Just say you're reviewing your vibe coded commits!

Clearly the issue here is about how vibe coders perceive the term vibe coding. Some of them feel that it's demeaning and are trying to wiggle their way out of the label by arguing semantics.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#229

Post by dwb »

tovej wrote: post #228
dwb wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The narrow term is very useful, there is obviously a world of difference between reviewing the output of an LLM and not - the latter is irresponsible. It shouldn’t be surprising that people bristle when being accused of it. It doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of redefining a term to make themselves feel better when the history of the term shows that yours is the redefinition. The simpler explanation is that the a…

You're saying what I'm saying. They feel self conscious about the term "vibe coding". And to be clear, nobody accused the people who lashed out here. They reacted to general statements that people are vibe coding. I also don't understand why the term vibe coding couldn't contain a spectrum of responsible use. Just say you're reviewing your vibe coded commits! Clearly the issue here is about how vibe coders perceive t…

No, people think it’s demeaning because they are using a different definition to you, the definition which was the original one. Don’t know how I can put it clearer.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#230

Post by tovej »

dwb wrote: post #229
tovej wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying what I'm saying. They feel self conscious about the term "vibe coding". And to be clear, nobody accused the people who lashed out here. They reacted to general statements that people are vibe coding. I also don't understand why the term vibe coding couldn't contain a spectrum of responsible use. Just say you're reviewing your vibe coded commits! Clearly the issue here is about how vibe coders perceive t…

No, people think it’s demeaning because they are using a different definition to you, the definition which was the original one. Don’t know how I can put it clearer.

You say no, but then you agree that they think it's demeaning. Are you saying no just to say no, because you dislike how I'm framing this?

I don't think you've shown that the narrow definition is the original one. That's just a claim with no evidence or argument for it.

If you think the tweet is that evidence, I disagree. The tweet itself could be used to support both definitions. Personally I think it's more inline with the broader definition (see previous posts in this thread).

Post reply on HN