2 ms·
The people in support of these bans generally aren't interested in "good vibe coded" software. They oppose LLMs altogether on various grounds, not just the outp
by VariousPrograms 2mo ago
The people in support of these bans generally aren't interested in "good vibe coded" software. They oppose LLMs altogether on various grounds, not just the output quality.
FWIW, if an LLM is writing significant code, I'd consider it vibe coding regardless of your understanding of the code or expert guidance and almost certainly ban-AI people would too. The scale people seem care about when this comes up is code percentage that's LLM-written to hand-written, not code ignorance to full understanding by the author.
- GPerson 2mo agoThe tab completion feature a lot of people were using before the term ‘vibecoding’ was coined by the AI dude is or isn’t vibecoding in your view?
- swatcoder 2mo ago> The people in support of these bans generally aren't interested in "good vibe coded" software. They oppose LLMs altogether on various grounds, not just the output quality. I think you're very wrong. I think many of the people who "support these bans" do recognize value in LLM's and use them as tools in the kit applied to their workflows but recognize that rampant abuse and misuse of those same tools threatens to ruin (or already has ruined) many community projects that had previously been healthy and thriving. And so they find themselves insisting upon unambiguous firewalls as an existential necessity for the communities they have invested years or decades of their lives into. How do we figure out who's right?