It's another way in which LLMs reflect the misprioritisation in dev learning, itself a reflection of the economic dynamics.. we always focused too much on writing code over reading it, and this production line mentality is why anyone would believe a machine that generates code could replace a developer

We're having to fully articulate the skills in building software for the first time

@sue

This is my confusion when I talk to people who have been "learning vibe coding" I have them describe what they did and it seems they have an LLM write some provisional code for them then they revise it and fine tune it so that it does what they want.

Which is just... coding. Do they think people code without looking at examples, libraries, specifications?

If they don't do that second part then they probably don't have a program that does what they want and they did not do any coding.

@sue @futurebird

A lot of vibe coding statements sounded to me like a slot machine:

They look at the end-user visible properties (e.g. the GUI or some desired result), then pull the lever again if it's not what they want.

If vibe coding was generating a simple prototype (with the understanding that it needs to be cleaned up and checked and refactored and so on), so they have something "tangible"... I think I would be totally okay with it.

@wakame @sue @futurebird it is a slot machine, however the payouts are quite consistent. And the big failures are due to missing my intent.

But a lot of those cleanups are also achieved via the llm. The places where I have to go back in and “hand” code corrections are getting smaller.