4 ms·
No. Please no. I don't want science vibecoded. Software can rely on layers of testing and verification and most code is applying decades-old patterns to a cust
by jubilanti 2mo ago
No. Please no. I don't want science vibecoded.
Software can rely on layers of testing and verification and most code is applying decades-old patterns to a customer's donain and gluing libraries together until they click. That simply don't work when you're on the frontier of something entirely new. There was already a glut of slop science before 2024. We don't need even more science-shaped slop clogging the peer review pipelines. Trust in science is at an all time low. This is a terrible thing to benchmark for and optimize.
- jampekka 2mo agoI generally trust vibe code a lot more than researcher code.
- frozenseven 2mo ago"Vibecoded" science is well on its way to being better than your "real Science™". Withholding the future is not an option.
- mullenba 2mo agoI'm sure there will be some golden nuggets in the petabytes of slop that are about to be unleashed. The signal to noise ratio will be so bad that all of science will suffer.
- frozenseven 2mo agoEvery doomer claim of this sort has not only failed to come true, but the exact opposite has happened. For instance, see the tsunami of new incredible results in mathematics.