331–340 of 646 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
war implies "not vibe code" could win. that's impossible
There's literally nothing that LLMs can build that humans cannot. The only factor influencing people to use AI is time. They trade off a small amount of quality for a large amount of time savings. The tortoise and the hare parable comes to mind.
I can’t help but read the logic as not being too far off from: “libfoo switched to being developed using emacs instead of vim so we can’t trust it anymore” It’s not the same obviously, but here’s why I can’t help but view it analogously: The only truth in software is whether it works or not for whatever your use case is. Even before AI, we couldn’t have known if the author of a piece of software was proceeding with r…
That's wild. You should read it as being nowhere in the same ballpark nor adjacent ballparks as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vibe-coded code is a code no human has written, so no human truly understands how it works. It's a perfectly reasonable technical decision not to support such software, especially if actual human effoft is required for that
I wouldn't have problems with AI-generated code, but LLMs are not AIs, they are random sentence generators. They don't have logic, yet programs are logical constructs. So let's call this what it is: randomly-generated code, kinda sorta filtered by humans and tests. It's not because the output distribution has a good match with the expected distribution that it's not random. An LLM that is "hallucinating" is still wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did not write the rust code. AI wrote that code. Your response is side stepping the primary issue people have with the rewrite: no human has read and understood all the code AI wrote.
I had an actual look at the code, and because it's a translation it's not just straight up de novo slop. The bits I saw were fairly straightforward 1:1 translations, so the Bun developers should still be familiar with the overall structure and logic. I still think it's mad, but not quite as mad as you might first think from the headlines.
Who wants to review a brand new codebase for free?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people probably think the text editor used would have no meaningful effect on the code written. I don't think many would say the same for LLMs. Maybe vibe bun is just as good or better than old bun, but how would we know at this point? > ...we couldn’t have known if the author of a piece of software was proceeding with rigor...we didn’t judge someone’s software by inspecting their methodology... That's not true.…
> Maybe vibe bun is just as good or better than old bun, but how would we know at this point? By considering objective facts like efficiency, performance, error rates, security vulns etc. like we always do?
We care about those things you listed and also the fact that code was written by (or exhaustively reviewed by) a sentient consciousness. It's just that the second thing has historically been implied. That's the difference you are experiencing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
studies suggest nothing. i've released a massive number of features in the last year for several projects that i estimate would have taken me multiple years to put together in a much more mentally exhausting way.
Your drive-by comments are unwelcome. You can estimate all you want, but the data is collating, and it isn't within your worldview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vibe-coded code is a code no human has written, so no human truly understands how it works. It's a perfectly reasonable technical decision not to support such software, especially if actual human effoft is required for that
I wouldn't have problems with AI-generated code, but LLMs are not AIs, they are random sentence generators. They don't have logic, yet programs are logical constructs. So let's call this what it is: randomly-generated code, kinda sorta filtered by humans and tests. It's not because the output distribution has a good match with the expected distribution that it's not random. An LLM that is "hallucinating" is still wor…
AI includes a lot of technologies, LLMs being just one of them. Several of these technologies use probabilistic algorithms, so having randomness does not disqualify something from being classified as AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your stance is more reasonable than the one in the article, TBH. If yt-dlp said something like "We're going to wait 6 months on the Rust rewrite", that would be reasonable. But instead it says something more like we think that Bun is vibe-coded, so we don't want to use it any more. That seems less reasonable.
It's not less reasonable. They don't have to promise giving Bun time in the future to evaluate. They might do it but they absolutely don't have to be responsible for doing it when the project made such dramatic shift. They can do absolutely what they want with their project especially when its majority decision. There can't be no doubt about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want the yt-dlp authors to review the entire post-migration Bun codebase? And what are you referring to as "behavior"?
Virtually no one reviews entire code bases of dependencies, what on earth are you talking about?