4 ms·

There probably needs to be some settled discussion on what constitutes "vibe coding." I interpret this term as "I input text into $AI_MODEL, I look at the app t

There probably needs to be some settled discussion on what constitutes "vibe coding." I interpret this term as "I input text into $AI_MODEL, I look at the app to see my change was implemented. I iterate via text prompts alone, rarely or never looking at the code generated." vs. what this author is doing, which seems more like agent assisted coding than "vibe" coding. With regard to the subject matter, it of course makes sense that managing more features than you used to be able to manage without $AI_MODEL would result in some mental fatigue. I also believe this gets worse the older you get. I've seen this within my own career, just from times of being understaffed and overworked, AI or not.

unshavedyak 11mo ago
> There probably needs to be some settled discussion on what constitutes "vibe coding." I interpret this term as "I input text into $AI_MODEL, I look at the app to see my change was implemented. I iterate via text prompts alone, rarely or never looking at the code generated." Agreed. I've seen some folks say that it requires absolute ignorance of the code being generated to be considered "vibe coded". Though i don't agree with that. For me it's more nuanced. I consider a lack of review to be "vibed" related to how little you looked at it. Considering LLMs can do some crazy things, even a few ignored LOC might end up with a pretty "vibe coded" feelings, despite being mostly reviewed outside of those ignored lines.
- layer8 11mo ago
  Maybe read the original definition: https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding Not looking at the code at all by default is essential to the term.
  - unshavedyak 11mo ago
    I agree, i'm saying any code it produces. Eg if you ignore 95% of the LLM's PR, are you vibe coding? Some would say no, because you read 5% of the PR. I would say yes, you are vibe coding. Ie you could say you vibe'd 95% of the PR, and i'd agree with that - but are you vibe coding then? You looked at 5% of the code, so you're not ignoring all of the code. Yet in the spirit of the phrase, it seems silly to say someone is not vibe coding despite ignoring almost all of the code generated.
    - layer8 11mo ago
      The question is, to what purpose are you looking at those 5%? I reckon it’s because you don’t really trust the vibes. In that sense, you’re not vibe-coding.
      - unshavedyak 11mo ago
        If that's the case i feel like we need some other term. As you're saying that someone who ignores 95% of the written code is not vibe coding. That to me says we need a term that describes "i ignored almost all code" type of "coding" that LLMs provide. I don't care about the 5% difference. I care about the bulk, the amount of bugs and poor logic that can slip in, etc. I have no attachment to the term "vibe coded", but it's useless to me if it doesn't describe this scenario.
happytoexplain 11mo ago
Yes, I'm getting increasingly confused as to why some people are broadening the use of "vibe" coding to just mean any AI coding, no matter how thorough/thoughtful.
- loloquwowndueo 11mo ago
  Like people using “bricked” to signal recoverable situations. “Oh the latest update bricked my phone and I had to factory-reset it, but it’s ok now”. Bricked used to mean it turned into something as useful as a brick, permanently.
  - namrog84 11mo ago
    I've also seen the term. You've been permanently banned for 12 hours. Instead of temporarily suspended. Whatever happened to the word suspended for temporary and ban for permanent and places say permanent with an expiration date.
    - nancyminusone 11mo ago
      My favorite one of these is "electrocuted" meaning "to be killed by electricity". Nobody alive has ever been electrocuted, but you will meet people who claim to have been.
      - stronglikedan 11mo ago
        The modern definition includes "injured", so plenty of living people have been electrocuted.
  - viccis 11mo ago
    I'm not sure how common this is in other countries, but Americans would rather add another definition to the dictionary for the misuse before they'd ever tolerate being corrected or (god forbid) learning the real meaning of a word. I got dogpiled for saying this about "factoid" the other day here, but sometimes when people misuse words like "bricked" or "electrocuted", the ambiguity does actually make a difference, meaning you have to follow up with "actually bricked permanently?" or "did the shock kill him?", meaning that semantic information has been lost.
celeryd 11mo ago
I don't see a distinction. Vibe coding is either agent assisted coding or using chatbots as interpreters for your design goals. They are the same thing.
- christophilus 11mo ago
  No. One involves human quality control, and one omits it.
- johnsmith1840 11mo ago
  "Vibe" has connotations of easy and fun neither of which are true when building something difficult
wvenable 11mo ago
> rarely or never looking at the code generated. My interpretation is that you can look at the code but vibe coding means ultimately you're not writing the code, you're just prompting. It would make sense to prompt "I'd like variable name 'bar' to be 'foo' instead." and that would still be vibe coding.
keeda 11mo ago
There was a huge discussion on this a few weeks ago, seems still far from settled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45503867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45503867 Personally I think "vibe-coding" has semantically shifted to mean any AI-assisted coding and we should just run with it. For the original meaning of vibe-coding, I suggest YOLO-Coding.
Kiro 11mo ago
I think the difference between the two is shrinking by the day. At this point I almost never need to address anything with the LLM's solution and could easily just go straight to testing for most things. The key difference is still the prompts and knowing what to reference/include in the context.
- lelanthran 11mo ago
  > I think the difference between the two is shrinking by the day. At this point I almost never need to address anything with the LLM's solution and could easily just go straight to testing for most things. Do you believe that atrophy is not a real thing? I've found that LLMs massively over-engineer things, regardless of the prompt used. How do you counter that without going back and forth at least a few times?
  - Kiro 11mo ago
    I don't "believe" in anything. I'm just describing my situation, where I'm trying to find ways to improve the solutions but seldom find any. It's purely an observation and not me advocating for one thing or another. I still check the output but it is starting to feel like a sanity check more than a code review.

unshavedyak 11mo ago

> There probably needs to be some settled discussion on what constitutes "vibe coding." I interpret this term as "I input text into $AI_MODEL, I look at the app to see my change was implemented. I iterate via text prompts alone, rarely or never looking at the code generated." Agreed. I've seen some folks say that it requires absolute ignorance of the code being generated to be considered "vibe coded". Though i don't agree with that. For me it's more nuanced. I consider a lack of review to be "vibed" related to how little you looked at it. Considering LLMs can do some crazy things, even a few ignored LOC might end up with a pretty "vibe coded" feelings, despite being mostly reviewed outside of those ignored lines.

layer8 11mo ago
Maybe read the original definition: https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding Not looking at the code at all by default is essential to the term.
- unshavedyak 11mo ago
  I agree, i'm saying any code it produces. Eg if you ignore 95% of the LLM's PR, are you vibe coding? Some would say no, because you read 5% of the PR. I would say yes, you are vibe coding. Ie you could say you vibe'd 95% of the PR, and i'd agree with that - but are you vibe coding then? You looked at 5% of the code, so you're not ignoring all of the code. Yet in the spirit of the phrase, it seems silly to say someone is not vibe coding despite ignoring almost all of the code generated.
  - layer8 11mo ago
    The question is, to what purpose are you looking at those 5%? I reckon it’s because you don’t really trust the vibes. In that sense, you’re not vibe-coding.
    - unshavedyak 11mo ago
      If that's the case i feel like we need some other term. As you're saying that someone who ignores 95% of the written code is not vibe coding. That to me says we need a term that describes "i ignored almost all code" type of "coding" that LLMs provide. I don't care about the 5% difference. I care about the bulk, the amount of bugs and poor logic that can slip in, etc. I have no attachment to the term "vibe coded", but it's useless to me if it doesn't describe this scenario.

happytoexplain 11mo ago

Yes, I'm getting increasingly confused as to why some people are broadening the use of "vibe" coding to just mean any AI coding, no matter how thorough/thoughtful.

loloquwowndueo 11mo ago
Like people using “bricked” to signal recoverable situations. “Oh the latest update bricked my phone and I had to factory-reset it, but it’s ok now”. Bricked used to mean it turned into something as useful as a brick, permanently.
- namrog84 11mo ago
  I've also seen the term. You've been permanently banned for 12 hours. Instead of temporarily suspended. Whatever happened to the word suspended for temporary and ban for permanent and places say permanent with an expiration date.
  - nancyminusone 11mo ago
    My favorite one of these is "electrocuted" meaning "to be killed by electricity". Nobody alive has ever been electrocuted, but you will meet people who claim to have been.
    - stronglikedan 11mo ago
      The modern definition includes "injured", so plenty of living people have been electrocuted.
- viccis 11mo ago
  I'm not sure how common this is in other countries, but Americans would rather add another definition to the dictionary for the misuse before they'd ever tolerate being corrected or (god forbid) learning the real meaning of a word. I got dogpiled for saying this about "factoid" the other day here, but sometimes when people misuse words like "bricked" or "electrocuted", the ambiguity does actually make a difference, meaning you have to follow up with "actually bricked permanently?" or "did the shock kill him?", meaning that semantic information has been lost.

celeryd 11mo ago

I don't see a distinction. Vibe coding is either agent assisted coding or using chatbots as interpreters for your design goals. They are the same thing.

christophilus 11mo ago
No. One involves human quality control, and one omits it.
johnsmith1840 11mo ago
"Vibe" has connotations of easy and fun neither of which are true when building something difficult

wvenable 11mo ago

> rarely or never looking at the code generated. My interpretation is that you can look at the code but vibe coding means ultimately you're not writing the code, you're just prompting. It would make sense to prompt "I'd like variable name 'bar' to be 'foo' instead." and that would still be vibe coding.

keeda 11mo ago

There was a huge discussion on this a few weeks ago, seems still far from settled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45503867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45503867 Personally I think "vibe-coding" has semantically shifted to mean any AI-assisted coding and we should just run with it. For the original meaning of vibe-coding, I suggest YOLO-Coding.

Kiro 11mo ago

I think the difference between the two is shrinking by the day. At this point I almost never need to address anything with the LLM's solution and could easily just go straight to testing for most things. The key difference is still the prompts and knowing what to reference/include in the context.

lelanthran 11mo ago
> I think the difference between the two is shrinking by the day. At this point I almost never need to address anything with the LLM's solution and could easily just go straight to testing for most things. Do you believe that atrophy is not a real thing? I've found that LLMs massively over-engineer things, regardless of the prompt used. How do you counter that without going back and forth at least a few times?
- Kiro 11mo ago
  I don't "believe" in anything. I'm just describing my situation, where I'm trying to find ways to improve the solutions but seldom find any. It's purely an observation and not me advocating for one thing or another. I still check the output but it is starting to feel like a sanity check more than a code review.