6 ms·

They get abandoned because they get generated on a whim. Sunk cost fallacy can be a feature: if you have spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears on a project, y

by sph 3mo ago

They get abandoned because they get generated on a whim. Sunk cost fallacy can be a feature: if you have spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears on a project, you are more likely to push it through adversity and the doldrums that inevitably one will encounter. If all it took was one of those momentarily brilliant ideas and a prompt on Claude to produce something, there is no attachment whatsoever to it. Speaking as the ‘average programmer’, I have dozens of brilliant ideas per day that don’t stand the test of time or scrutiny, and the very few that pass the filter don’t seem that interesting days later, or worth the effort at all. Ideas have always been cheap. Now, proof of concepts have become as cheap. I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it.

manphone 3mo ago
It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well.
- pydry 3mo ago
  Or rather because they are always just of poor quality
  - pmarreck 3mo ago
    Define “quality” (I’m pretty sure both you and I would “know it when we see it”, but…)
    - lproven 3mo ago
      There was an entire book about that 50 years ago, and last month someone brought that thinking and analysis to the LLM-bot issue: EDIT: this is the one I was thinking of... https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2026/06/01/quality-in-the-age-of-slop/ https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2026/06/01/quality-in-the-ag... But this is relevant too... https://bersas.substack.com/p/zen-and-the-dance-of-generative-ai https://bersas.substack.com/p/zen-and-the-dance-of-generativ...
  - ungovernableCat 3mo ago
    If you had a time machine and you could republish a claude generated article about some interesting tech topic to 2010 I'm sure it would get ok engagement. To me the issue is that everything becomes written in the same style pattern. I don't know why but if I spot it I wince internally and immediately skim the post or just outright stop reading. A large part of it is overexposure. For me it's made browsing the internet quite uncomfortable since it's unavoidable. I mainly spend my online time in group chats these days.
    - 27183 3mo ago
      > ok engagement That is such a miserably low bar
- locknitpicker 3mo ago
  > It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well. That's not it at all. The problem with AI slop is that in general it's not worth reading, because to start off even the author deemed the topic wasn't even worth writing to begin with. Worst, most AI slop blog spam was obviously not even reviewed by the bloggers who prompted them into existence. This means is also content that even the bloggers themselves felt wasn't worth reading at all. But somehow they expect us to invest our time reading AI slop?
  - bombcar 3mo ago
    Think how much LinkedIn slop wasn’t worth reading BEFORE AI; but at least some effort had to be put in. Now none is needed.
- 27183 3mo ago
  Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.
  - Leonard_of_Q 3mo ago
    Is writing thinking? Good writing requires thinking but does that also go for sloppy writing? What is thinking? This is the subject of a discussion [1, 2] I'm in - which in true HN style has been greyed-out because of ${reasons} - regarding the question whether these models 'think'. Your comment on writing [being] thinking supports the idea that what these models do is a form of thinking: selecting the next most likely descriptor given the current problem space including all previously added descriptors. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884193 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890755
  - efficax 3mo ago
    writing is a form of thinking, but there are others
  - jgraham 3mo ago
    It's not that writing _is_ thinking, but (effective) writing _requires_ thinking. It forces you to take a collection of lose and incoherent thoughts and reify them into an argument that can hold its own weight.
    - sph 3mo ago
      The art of essay writing allows an author to ascertain how well they understand a topic and work out the flaws just by trying to put it into words. Paul Graham speaks about this.
- gavinsyancey 3mo ago
  Yeah -- if it wasn't worth your time to write the post, why do I think it should be worth my time to read it?
  - duggan 3mo ago
    Fabulous use of meta-irony, bravo.
- Der_Einzige 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hilariously 3mo ago
    Then why don't you just eat soylent and drink tap water while using only your imagination? The medium is also part of the message.
    - whateveracct 3mo ago
      heh you know a person with "carbon chauvinist" in their vocabularies already does just eat soylent
- mbesto 3mo ago
  You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. > would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading To your point however, the reason people don't like AI generated blogs is because there is a explicit recognition that the author of the blog lacked effort. There is a visceral response for the reader about the social contract "if you didn't spend as much time as I did why should I care about what's written here", it's however NOT that the quality is inherently poor (but perhaps one my insinuate that notion).
  - asdf88990 3mo ago
    > You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. Quality is a bit nuanced but that quality of AI generated content is subpar to expert output is fairly established. The implications of this ever becoming false amounts to GAI.
    - asdf88990 3mo ago
      AGI*
  - deaton 3mo ago
    > You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. I can and I will say that, if not only for the fact that, in the eyes of many people, AI and the botched launch of the past few years has incurred a great amount of distrust. But, going further, the vast majority of AI-generated blog posts are lower quality, because they lack human thought and effort behind them. I'm not saying AI is completely incapable of writing what a human can, but we can't relate to how it "thinks", if you can call it that, and if someone is going to put enough effort into curating an AI's output and coaching it to make it output something that is really of a high quality... they just put in all of the human effort it would have taken for them to write it themselves. I also don't think this should be construed to mean that human-written posts are universally good. AI slop is just the latest and most farmable iteration of a long history of badly written and poorly thought out content on the internet. In some ways the average AI blog is probably more coherent than any flat earth blog. I also think that that visceral disgust at consuming AI generated work points to something else. We are all still trying to grapple with the ethical boundaries of what is okay and what isn't okay to do with AI, but I think most people feel deceived when they find out they're watching an AI video, or reading an AI blog post, and rather than assuming people are wrong to feel that way, we should consider that their feelings on the matter do matter. Nobody wants to be fed algorithmically optimized fake slop by YouTube, and that's okay.
- UltraSane 3mo ago
  Reading the output of a LLM prompt someone else wrote isn't useful as I can run the prompt myself. Having the prompt is actually more useful because I can run it in any LLM I want.
  - pixl97 3mo ago
    Look at Mr infinite tokens over here.
locknitpicker 3mo ago
> They get abandoned because they get generated on a whim. I think it's more than that. These greenfield projects are actually things that, up until the inception of LLMs, they were not worth creating. With AI code assistants, the cost of developing them is lower, but in the end you still end up with a project that no one bothered to create.
TeriyakiBomb 3mo ago
A drum I've been banging increasingly often recently is that having friction and time to work ideas over in your mind adds huge amounts of value. Vibe coded projects have this very specific, well, vibe to them where you can clearly see that the lack of time to digest has allowed the person to not challenge their own worst impulses. You can see it in the feature bloat, the lack of depth and polish in core features and the wild asides you tend to talk yourself out of still on display.
- ramses0 3mo ago
  Fuben-Eki! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169679
  - nivethan 3mo ago
    thanks for that link, I've thought that friction was helpful but this gives me a word and a concept to look at.
    - zogrodea 3mo ago
      Happy to learn about the concept today. It resonates with me. I sometimes think of something Kant wrote, about how friction (hardship, etc.) elevates us. In Kant's own words: "Without those in themselves unamiable characteristics of unsociability from whence opposition springs-characteristics each man must find in his own selfish pretensions-all talents would remain hidden, unborn in an Arcadian shepherd’s life, with all its concord, contentment, and mutual affection. Men, good-natured as the sheep they herd, would hardly reach a higher worth than their beasts; they would not fill the empty place in creation by achieving their end, which is rational nature. Thanks be to Nature, then, for the incompatibility, for heartless competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and to rule! Without them, all the excellent natural capacities of humanity would forever sleep, undeveloped. Man wishes concord; but Nature knows better what is good for the race; she wills discord. He wishes to live comfortably and pleasantly; Nature wills that he should be plunged from sloth and passive contentment into labor and trouble, in order that he may find means of extricating himself from them. The natural urges to this, the sources of unsociableness and mutual opposition from which so many evils arise, drive men to new exertions of their forces and thus to the manifold development of their capacities. They thereby perhaps show the ordering of a wise Creator and not the hand of an evil spirit, who bungled in his great work or spoiled it out of envy." See the section titled "FOURTH THESIS" at the following link if interested. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Idea_for_a_Universal_History_from_a_Cosmopolitan_Point_of_View https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Idea_for_a_Universal_History_...
throwatdem12311 3mo ago
Maybe those ideas aren’t so brilliant.
BetterThanSober 3mo ago
I wonder how much they spend on this rewrite, in tokens and $ using commercial pricing
- Jnr 3mo ago
  I saw an estimate of around 160k $ somewhere in HN comments about the rewrite.
- taude 3mo ago
  it said in the original article on the bun rewrite ~165K.
  - hoppp 3mo ago
    For that money they could hire engineers to do it without having so many unsafe blocks. The only gain is speed.
- Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
  I wonder how much it costs them in the long run; the initial number mentioned seemed cheap enough (equivalent to 1-2 developers for a year - and I don't believe 1-2 developers could rewrite it in a year, for various reasons), but if it's a 1:1 "transpilation" to unsafe Rust... was it worth it? Will it be worth it in the long run? But this is the longer running discourse about AI code's cost / benefit. I keep nagging my work's AI community to show me the numbers, so far nobody has been able to show an increase in productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, or company profits.
m4xp 3mo ago
Keep in mind logic bug that ai makes are extremely hard and expensive to fix as the clanker needs to parse thousand and thousands of lines of text every prompt while a human tries to explain what it's obviously doing wrong. I hate ai so much because its so easy to generate quick slop that "appears" functional.
budsniffer952 3mo ago
>Ideas have always been cheap. Now, proof of concepts have become as cheap. I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. Yes. I'm as pro-AI coding as people come, but this is the part that bugs me too. If you whip something useful up in a weekend, great! But you don't have to present it like you are building an actual product. It's fine if no one else knows about it. Because the fact is, most people don't care, even before AI. Building for yourself is fine.
- dnautics 3mo ago
  building for yourself (or a few people) is amazing! and AI coding really makes this tractable.
dennysora-main 3mo ago
[dead]
DonHopkins 3mo ago
>Ideas have always been cheap. Now, proof of concepts have become as cheap. I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. I dunno, this idea guy seems to have some really great ideas, what's wrong with you skeptical programmers who aren't on board implementing his ideas for equity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q
deaux 3mo ago
> I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. 100%, you actually stated it correctly. It's not "I don't care unless you've written/reviewed everything by hand". If someone writes something by hand in an hour, including ideation, and puts it on Show HN, realistically it's almost certainly not going to be worth even looking at. I've been running an app in prod for more than a year now, mostly vibecoded long before HN believed it was possible - HN only started believing this around Jan this year at the earliest. But nobody who uses it cares, or even notices, because it took a month to build. That's what matters, the amount of time and thought put into it. Of course it's true that vibecoded projects have a much lower median amount of time and thought put into it. But that's like Louisiana having a much lower median income than California, it's just a median, not an inherent characteristic of being a Louisianan vs a Californian, there are plenty of poorer Californians and richer Louisianans.
crowdhailer 3mo ago
Not heard sunk cost fallacy described as a feature before. Interesting idea.
ljm 3mo ago
It's very strange to vibe code a project and feel both a lack of emotional investment but also the cognitive overhead of steering an AI. The process of iteration, or the feedback loop, typically allows space to try things out and experiment and then either drop an idea or refine it more purposefully. And those breaks in between the pure delivery to focus on that gives you room to breathe and also see the progress of your work. Blatting it out in 6 hours with Fable 5 skips all of that and you have something like an MVP, but you haven't really put anything of yourself into it. So why bother committing unless you can take that further or apply something novel or reflect your own personality in it? Or you genuinely believe you're on to something and the AI approach actually gave you a path to building it? I've been 'vibe coding' something, I've spent about a month on it on and off along with a fair bit of debugging on some sticky issues. I still think I'd suffer going into that codebase and doing stuff in it by hand, no matter how well I thought I organised it all.
frou_dh 3mo ago
Great point. It is simply lame impatient clout-chasing when someone goes out and promotes their project that is approximately as new to them as it is to the people they're promoting it to.

by sph 3mo ago

manphone 3mo ago

It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well.

pydry 3mo ago
Or rather because they are always just of poor quality
- pmarreck 3mo ago
  Define “quality” (I’m pretty sure both you and I would “know it when we see it”, but…)
  - lproven 3mo ago
    There was an entire book about that 50 years ago, and last month someone brought that thinking and analysis to the LLM-bot issue: EDIT: this is the one I was thinking of... https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2026/06/01/quality-in-the-age-of-slop/ https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2026/06/01/quality-in-the-ag... But this is relevant too... https://bersas.substack.com/p/zen-and-the-dance-of-generative-ai https://bersas.substack.com/p/zen-and-the-dance-of-generativ...
- ungovernableCat 3mo ago
  If you had a time machine and you could republish a claude generated article about some interesting tech topic to 2010 I'm sure it would get ok engagement. To me the issue is that everything becomes written in the same style pattern. I don't know why but if I spot it I wince internally and immediately skim the post or just outright stop reading. A large part of it is overexposure. For me it's made browsing the internet quite uncomfortable since it's unavoidable. I mainly spend my online time in group chats these days.
  - 27183 3mo ago
    > ok engagement That is such a miserably low bar
locknitpicker 3mo ago
> It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well. That's not it at all. The problem with AI slop is that in general it's not worth reading, because to start off even the author deemed the topic wasn't even worth writing to begin with. Worst, most AI slop blog spam was obviously not even reviewed by the bloggers who prompted them into existence. This means is also content that even the bloggers themselves felt wasn't worth reading at all. But somehow they expect us to invest our time reading AI slop?
- bombcar 3mo ago
  Think how much LinkedIn slop wasn’t worth reading BEFORE AI; but at least some effort had to be put in. Now none is needed.
27183 3mo ago
Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.
- Leonard_of_Q 3mo ago
  Is writing thinking? Good writing requires thinking but does that also go for sloppy writing? What is thinking? This is the subject of a discussion [1, 2] I'm in - which in true HN style has been greyed-out because of ${reasons} - regarding the question whether these models 'think'. Your comment on writing [being] thinking supports the idea that what these models do is a form of thinking: selecting the next most likely descriptor given the current problem space including all previously added descriptors. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884193 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890755
- efficax 3mo ago
  writing is a form of thinking, but there are others
- jgraham 3mo ago
  It's not that writing _is_ thinking, but (effective) writing _requires_ thinking. It forces you to take a collection of lose and incoherent thoughts and reify them into an argument that can hold its own weight.
  - sph 3mo ago
    The art of essay writing allows an author to ascertain how well they understand a topic and work out the flaws just by trying to put it into words. Paul Graham speaks about this.
gavinsyancey 3mo ago
Yeah -- if it wasn't worth your time to write the post, why do I think it should be worth my time to read it?
- duggan 3mo ago
  Fabulous use of meta-irony, bravo.
Der_Einzige 3mo ago
[flagged]
- hilariously 3mo ago
  Then why don't you just eat soylent and drink tap water while using only your imagination? The medium is also part of the message.
  - whateveracct 3mo ago
    heh you know a person with "carbon chauvinist" in their vocabularies already does just eat soylent
mbesto 3mo ago
You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. > would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading To your point however, the reason people don't like AI generated blogs is because there is a explicit recognition that the author of the blog lacked effort. There is a visceral response for the reader about the social contract "if you didn't spend as much time as I did why should I care about what's written here", it's however NOT that the quality is inherently poor (but perhaps one my insinuate that notion).
- asdf88990 3mo ago
  > You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. Quality is a bit nuanced but that quality of AI generated content is subpar to expert output is fairly established. The implications of this ever becoming false amounts to GAI.
  - asdf88990 3mo ago
    AGI*
- deaton 3mo ago
  > You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit. I can and I will say that, if not only for the fact that, in the eyes of many people, AI and the botched launch of the past few years has incurred a great amount of distrust. But, going further, the vast majority of AI-generated blog posts are lower quality, because they lack human thought and effort behind them. I'm not saying AI is completely incapable of writing what a human can, but we can't relate to how it "thinks", if you can call it that, and if someone is going to put enough effort into curating an AI's output and coaching it to make it output something that is really of a high quality... they just put in all of the human effort it would have taken for them to write it themselves. I also don't think this should be construed to mean that human-written posts are universally good. AI slop is just the latest and most farmable iteration of a long history of badly written and poorly thought out content on the internet. In some ways the average AI blog is probably more coherent than any flat earth blog. I also think that that visceral disgust at consuming AI generated work points to something else. We are all still trying to grapple with the ethical boundaries of what is okay and what isn't okay to do with AI, but I think most people feel deceived when they find out they're watching an AI video, or reading an AI blog post, and rather than assuming people are wrong to feel that way, we should consider that their feelings on the matter do matter. Nobody wants to be fed algorithmically optimized fake slop by YouTube, and that's okay.
UltraSane 3mo ago
Reading the output of a LLM prompt someone else wrote isn't useful as I can run the prompt myself. Having the prompt is actually more useful because I can run it in any LLM I want.
- pixl97 3mo ago
  Look at Mr infinite tokens over here.

locknitpicker 3mo ago

> They get abandoned because they get generated on a whim. I think it's more than that. These greenfield projects are actually things that, up until the inception of LLMs, they were not worth creating. With AI code assistants, the cost of developing them is lower, but in the end you still end up with a project that no one bothered to create.

TeriyakiBomb 3mo ago

A drum I've been banging increasingly often recently is that having friction and time to work ideas over in your mind adds huge amounts of value. Vibe coded projects have this very specific, well, vibe to them where you can clearly see that the lack of time to digest has allowed the person to not challenge their own worst impulses. You can see it in the feature bloat, the lack of depth and polish in core features and the wild asides you tend to talk yourself out of still on display.

ramses0 3mo ago
Fuben-Eki! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169679
- nivethan 3mo ago
  thanks for that link, I've thought that friction was helpful but this gives me a word and a concept to look at.
  - zogrodea 3mo ago
    Happy to learn about the concept today. It resonates with me. I sometimes think of something Kant wrote, about how friction (hardship, etc.) elevates us. In Kant's own words: "Without those in themselves unamiable characteristics of unsociability from whence opposition springs-characteristics each man must find in his own selfish pretensions-all talents would remain hidden, unborn in an Arcadian shepherd’s life, with all its concord, contentment, and mutual affection. Men, good-natured as the sheep they herd, would hardly reach a higher worth than their beasts; they would not fill the empty place in creation by achieving their end, which is rational nature. Thanks be to Nature, then, for the incompatibility, for heartless competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and to rule! Without them, all the excellent natural capacities of humanity would forever sleep, undeveloped. Man wishes concord; but Nature knows better what is good for the race; she wills discord. He wishes to live comfortably and pleasantly; Nature wills that he should be plunged from sloth and passive contentment into labor and trouble, in order that he may find means of extricating himself from them. The natural urges to this, the sources of unsociableness and mutual opposition from which so many evils arise, drive men to new exertions of their forces and thus to the manifold development of their capacities. They thereby perhaps show the ordering of a wise Creator and not the hand of an evil spirit, who bungled in his great work or spoiled it out of envy." See the section titled "FOURTH THESIS" at the following link if interested. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Idea_for_a_Universal_History_from_a_Cosmopolitan_Point_of_View https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Idea_for_a_Universal_History_...

throwatdem12311 3mo ago

Maybe those ideas aren’t so brilliant.

BetterThanSober 3mo ago

I wonder how much they spend on this rewrite, in tokens and $ using commercial pricing

Jnr 3mo ago
I saw an estimate of around 160k $ somewhere in HN comments about the rewrite.
taude 3mo ago
it said in the original article on the bun rewrite ~165K.
- hoppp 3mo ago
  For that money they could hire engineers to do it without having so many unsafe blocks. The only gain is speed.
Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
I wonder how much it costs them in the long run; the initial number mentioned seemed cheap enough (equivalent to 1-2 developers for a year - and I don't believe 1-2 developers could rewrite it in a year, for various reasons), but if it's a 1:1 "transpilation" to unsafe Rust... was it worth it? Will it be worth it in the long run? But this is the longer running discourse about AI code's cost / benefit. I keep nagging my work's AI community to show me the numbers, so far nobody has been able to show an increase in productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, or company profits.

m4xp 3mo ago

Keep in mind logic bug that ai makes are extremely hard and expensive to fix as the clanker needs to parse thousand and thousands of lines of text every prompt while a human tries to explain what it's obviously doing wrong. I hate ai so much because its so easy to generate quick slop that "appears" functional.

budsniffer952 3mo ago

>Ideas have always been cheap. Now, proof of concepts have become as cheap. I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. Yes. I'm as pro-AI coding as people come, but this is the part that bugs me too. If you whip something useful up in a weekend, great! But you don't have to present it like you are building an actual product. It's fine if no one else knows about it. Because the fact is, most people don't care, even before AI. Building for yourself is fine.

dnautics 3mo ago
building for yourself (or a few people) is amazing! and AI coding really makes this tractable.

dennysora-main 3mo ago

[dead]

DonHopkins 3mo ago

>Ideas have always been cheap. Now, proof of concepts have become as cheap. I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. I dunno, this idea guy seems to have some really great ideas, what's wrong with you skeptical programmers who aren't on board implementing his ideas for equity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q

deaux 3mo ago

> I don’t care about your Show HN unless you have spent a month on it. 100%, you actually stated it correctly. It's not "I don't care unless you've written/reviewed everything by hand". If someone writes something by hand in an hour, including ideation, and puts it on Show HN, realistically it's almost certainly not going to be worth even looking at. I've been running an app in prod for more than a year now, mostly vibecoded long before HN believed it was possible - HN only started believing this around Jan this year at the earliest. But nobody who uses it cares, or even notices, because it took a month to build. That's what matters, the amount of time and thought put into it. Of course it's true that vibecoded projects have a much lower median amount of time and thought put into it. But that's like Louisiana having a much lower median income than California, it's just a median, not an inherent characteristic of being a Louisianan vs a Californian, there are plenty of poorer Californians and richer Louisianans.

crowdhailer 3mo ago

Not heard sunk cost fallacy described as a feature before. Interesting idea.

ljm 3mo ago

It's very strange to vibe code a project and feel both a lack of emotional investment but also the cognitive overhead of steering an AI. The process of iteration, or the feedback loop, typically allows space to try things out and experiment and then either drop an idea or refine it more purposefully. And those breaks in between the pure delivery to focus on that gives you room to breathe and also see the progress of your work. Blatting it out in 6 hours with Fable 5 skips all of that and you have something like an MVP, but you haven't really put anything of yourself into it. So why bother committing unless you can take that further or apply something novel or reflect your own personality in it? Or you genuinely believe you're on to something and the AI approach actually gave you a path to building it? I've been 'vibe coding' something, I've spent about a month on it on and off along with a fair bit of debugging on some sticky issues. I still think I'd suffer going into that codebase and doing stuff in it by hand, no matter how well I thought I organised it all.

frou_dh 3mo ago

Great point. It is simply lame impatient clout-chasing when someone goes out and promotes their project that is approximately as new to them as it is to the people they're promoting it to.