| ▲ | stavros 4 days ago |
| No, this is where this discussion is, since the top comment. Please go elsewhere for straw men. |
|
| ▲ | afro88 4 days ago | parent [-] |
| No one mentioned anything about "people who can't program at all" until your comment. Up until then the discussion was about using LLMs for production ready code. It's a given that people working on production systems know how to program. |
| |
| ▲ | stavros 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That is what "auto-edits" (in the first comment) and "vibe coding" (in the second comment) mean. | | |
| ▲ | afro88 a day ago | parent [-] | | The bit you're missing is that people who can program also use "auto edits" and "vibe coding" when it fits the problem at hand | | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent [-] | | As someone who can program and used vibe coding, when they use vibe coding and don't look at the output, how do they ensure errors don't compound? | | |
| ▲ | afro88 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'll give you that - you can't vibe code, not look at the output, and push to main of a production codebase. Same as writing code normally. But you can vibe code and auto-edit your way to a good PR. But you're reviewing the code being output when the agent finishes each task. Maybe that's not pure vibe coding? | | |
| ▲ | stavros 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The definition of vibe coding is that you aren't looking at the code. That's what's never worked for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
