How often do you have to win before it's no longer gambling?
AI coding is gambling
51–60 of 471 posts
Re: AI coding is gambling
#52It is and will always be about: 1) properly defining the spec 2) ensuring the implementation satisfies said spec
Re: AI coding is gambling
#53Re: AI coding is gambling
#54It is and will always be about: 1) properly defining the spec 2) ensuring the implementation satisfies said spec
Re: AI coding is gambling
#55Lmk how you feel when you're constantly build integrations with legacy software by hand.
Re: AI coding is gambling
#56It is and will always be about: 1) properly defining the spec 2) ensuring the implementation satisfies said spec
[Imports the completely fabricated library docker_quantum_telepathy.js and calls the resolve_all_bugs_and_make_coffee() method, magically compiling the code on an unplugged Raspberry Pi]
AI: "Done! The production deployment was successful, zero errors in the logs, and the app works flawlessly on the first try!"
Re: AI coding is gambling
#57The gambling metaphor often applied to vibecoding implies that the outcome cannot be fully controlled or influenced, such as a slot machine. Opus 4.5 and beyond show that it not only can be very much can be influenced, but also it can give better results more consistently with the proper checks and balances.
1/ Dependency -- Once I got used to agentic coding, I almost always reached out to it even for small changes (e.g. update a yaml config)
2/ Addiction -- In the initial euphoria phase, many people experience not wanting to "waste" any time agent idle and they'd try to assign AI agents task before they go to sleep
3/ You trust your judgement less and less as agent takes over your code
4/ "Slot machine" behavior -- running multiple AI agents parallel on same task in hope of getting some valuable insight from either
5/ Psychosis -- We have all met crypto traders who'd tell you how your 9-5 is stupid and you could be making so much trading NFTs. Social media if full of similar anecodotes these days in regards to vibecoding with people boasting their Claude spend, LOC and what not
Re: AI coding is gambling
#58Life is full of variable reward schemes. Probably why we evolved to be so enamoured by them. Sometimes I think we put the Carr before the horse. We gamble because evolution promotes that approach. Yes I could go for the reliable option. But taking a punt is worth a shot if the cost is low. The cost of AI is low. What is a problem is people getting wrapped up in just one more pull of the slot machine handle. I use AI…
I doubt gambling is in nature. Investments based on reason pay off. Evolution shapes for sensical moves. Humans invented gambling as a rigged game that mimics what's in nature, perversed for profit.
You need to collect food, do you go to where you know there are berries (low value but high likelihood of finding), or scout off to find a herd of deer? (High value but low likelihood of finding).
Looking for deer wouldnt be walking off in a random direction. You check water holes, known clearings, known fields.
Each of these is an operation (walk to X and look), each has a low probability of meeting a deer.
This is a variable reward scheme.
The result is optmize foraging practices - you mostly hunt for deer then fall back to berries. In larger groups some will gather berries some will hunt.
Contrary to popular thought hunter and gatherer were not separate occupations.
Re: AI coding is gambling
#59The gambling metaphor often applied to vibecoding implies that the outcome cannot be fully controlled or influenced, such as a slot machine. Opus 4.5 and beyond show that it not only can be very much can be influenced, but also it can give better results more consistently with the proper checks and balances.
Re: AI coding is gambling
#60How often do you have to win before it's no longer gambling?