3 ms·
'They are an environmental catastrophe' This for me the main source of concern. I am having a blast vibe coding. I understand my job is at risk. But I am total
by seviu 2mo ago
'They are an environmental catastrophe'
This for me the main source of concern. I am having a blast vibe coding. I understand my job is at risk. But I am totally oblivious to the fact that they are accelerating climate change.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2mo agoIf that's the main concern, wouldn't banning them from code sharing sites be harmful? If a person can create a project using AI and share it, then people can use their code without having to reinvent it. If it can't be shared, then anybody who wants that functionality will recreate it from scratch, and if they use AI to do so then you have now burned ~2x the compute=electricity=impact.
- g-b-r 2mo agoVibecoders like to make all kinds of things that already exist, often don't care (or notice) if the AI rewrites everything instead of using what exists, and LLMs love to do that.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2mo agoOkay, you can pick between 90% NIH with some sharing or 95% NIH because you tried to stop the sharing. The amount doesn't matter; you're still causing more AI use.
- g-b-r 2mo agoNIH? Anyhow you kind of cause more use of AI also if it seems that everyone is using it, and thus you should adopt it too. And nothing actually prevents a vibecoder to clone a repository on SourceHut, they just would be less able to add a ton of crap to it and spit it back on SourceHut (they'll just spit it back on GitHub).
- yjftsjthsd-h 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here I guess that's also a plausible possibility. Honestly I mostly don't think sr.ht has enough market share to matter either way.
- g-b-r 2mo agoRight