3 ms·

My definition to "vibe coding" is the one where you prompt without ever looking at the code that's being produced. The moment you start paying attention to the

• zx8080 8mo ago
  What if you review 50%? Or 10%? Or only 1%, is it not vibe coding yet? Where is the borderline?
  • simonw 8mo ago
    I think the borderline is when you take responsibility for the code, and stop blaming the LLM for any mistakes. That's the level of responsibility I want to see from people using LLMs in a professional context. I want them to take full ownership of the changes they are producing.
    • maxbond 8mo ago
      I don't blame the agent for mistakes in my vibe coded personal software, it's always my fault. To me it's like this: 80%+: You don't understand the codebase. Correctness is ensured through manual testing and asking the agent to find bugs. You're only concerned with outcomes, the code is sloppy. 50%: You understand the structure of the codebase, you are skimming changes in your session, but correctness is still ensured mostly through manual testing and asking the agent to review. Code quality is questionable but you're keeping it from spinning out of control. Critically, you are hands on enough to ensure security, data integrity, the stuff that really counts at the end of the day. 20%-: You've designed the structure of the codebase, you are writing most of the code, you are probably only copypasting code from a chatbot if you're generating code at all. The code is probably well made and maintainable.
      • Toutouxc 8mo ago
        I feel like there’s one more dimension. For me, 95%+ of code that I ship has been written (i.e. typed out) by a LLM, but the architecture and structure, down to method and variable names, is mine, and completely my responsibility.
    • zx8080 8mo ago
      Sounds good, however the bar is probably too far and far too idealistic. The effects of vibecoding destroys trust inside teams and orgs, between engineers.
      • ssgodderidge 8mo ago
        As would the effects of shipping unverified, untested code pre-agents existing. Bad quality will always erode trust. The problem with LLM-based coding is that the speed it can generate code (whether good or bad) is much faster than before.
    • Toutouxc 8mo ago
      And are you not seeing that level of responsibility?
      • simonw 8mo ago
        I'm trying to demonstrate that in my own work, but from the comments I see in places like Hacker News there are a lot of people who aren't. I wrote a note about that here: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-patterns/anti-patterns/#inflicting-unreviewed-code-on-collaborators https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
        • DonHopkins 8mo ago
          Ragentic Engineering is when you curse at the LLM.
  • 000ooo000 8mo ago
    Have to consult the Definition Engineers to find out