Hey, I don't fucking know, I'm not a coder. Maybe people were blindly copy-pasting StackOverflow code into their projects and just hoping it worked well enough. It seems to me LLM's make it easier to write working but dangerous code (this article also seems to say this), and I'm not sure making dangerous code easier to produce is a good idea.
But whatever, again, I'm not a coder, I just wanted to push back a little on your extremely uncharitable reading of an article you don't like.
Ok? I think you're having a fight with someone who isn't me! I'm really just trying to say that your reading of the article about vibe coding is extremely uncharitable. The author didn't seem, to me, like someone who is against making stuff easier for people, but instead someone with worries about whether LLM's might actually be dangerous.
You can disagree about their danger (you clearly do), but I'm unqualified to speak to their danger (I'm not a coder), and so that aspect of the matter isn't something I'm eager to discuss, and isn't something I've tried to discuss. All I've said is that I think your dismissal of the author of the article as someone who won't be satisfied until everyone is coding in assembly is wildly off-base.
My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn't be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.
The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.
Hey, I don't fucking know, I'm not a coder. Maybe people were blindly copy-pasting StackOverflow code into their projects and just hoping it worked well enough. It seems to me LLM's make it easier to write working but dangerous code (this article also seems to say this), and I'm not sure making dangerous code easier to produce is a good idea.
But whatever, again, I'm not a coder, I just wanted to push back a little on your extremely uncharitable reading of an article you don't like.
I'm am a coder, and I've been doing this professionally for over two decades now. I don't think LLMs play any actual role here.
Ok? I think you're having a fight with someone who isn't me! I'm really just trying to say that your reading of the article about vibe coding is extremely uncharitable. The author didn't seem, to me, like someone who is against making stuff easier for people, but instead someone with worries about whether LLM's might actually be dangerous.
You can disagree about their danger (you clearly do), but I'm unqualified to speak to their danger (I'm not a coder), and so that aspect of the matter isn't something I'm eager to discuss, and isn't something I've tried to discuss. All I've said is that I think your dismissal of the author of the article as someone who won't be satisfied until everyone is coding in assembly is wildly off-base.
My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn't be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.
The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.