Remix.run Logo
pritambarhate 2 hours ago

Let's say there is an architect and he also owns a construction company. This architect, then designs a building and gets it built from of his employees and contractors.

In such cases the person says, I have built this building. People who found companies, say they have built companies. It's commonly accepted in our society.

So even if Claude built for it for GP, as long as GP designed it, paid for tools (Claude) to build it, also tested it to make sure that it works, I personally think, he has right to say he has built it.

If you don't like it, you are not required to use it.

fauigerzigerk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that it's ultimately about the product.

But here's the problem. Five years ago, when someone on here said, "I wrote this non-trivial software", the implication was that a highly motivated and competent software engineer put a lot of effort into making sure that the project meets a reasonable standard of quality and will probably put some effort into maintaining the project.

Today, it does not necessarily imply that. We just don't know.

pritambarhate 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Even with LLMs delivering software that consistently works requires quite a bit of work and in most cases requires certain level of expertise. Humans also write quite a bit of garbage code.

People using LLMs to code these days is similar to how majority people stopped using assembly and moved to C and C++, then to garbage collected languages and dynamically typed languages. People were always looking for ways to make programmers more productive.

Programming is evolving. LLMs are just next generation programming tools. They make programmers more productive and in majority of the cases people and companies are going to use them more and more.

heliumtera 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We know. It is not difficult to tell them apart. Good taste is apparent and beauty is universal. The amount of care and attention someone put into a craft is universally appreciated. Also, I am 100% confident this comment was the output of a human process. We can tell. There is something more. It is obvious for those that have a soul.

pbh101 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In general that is all implication and assumption, for any code, especially OSS code.

dabber 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original person didn't say "I wrote this non-trivial software", they said "I built Velo".

fauigerzigerk 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

...and pointed us to a repository containing non-trivial software.

wahnfrieden 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Hand-written code never implied much about quality no matter the author, especially as we all use libraries of reusable code of varying quality

greatgib 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The architect knows what it is doing. And the workers are professionals with supervisors to check that the work is done properly.

risyachka 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Asking someone to build a house - and then saying I built it - is "very misleading" to put it nicely.

When you order a website on upwork - you didn't build it. You bought it.

happymellon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a lot of ifs.

rootnod3 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That has to be the worst analogy I have read in a while, and I’m HN that says something.

testdelacc1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What an outrageously bad analogy. Everyone involved in that building put their professional reputations and licenses on the line. If that building collapses, the people involved will lose their livelihoods and be held criminally liable.

Meanwhile this vibe coded nonsense is provided “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. We don’t even know if he read it before committing and pushing.

pbh101 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Same with any OSS. Up to you to validate whether or not it is worth depending on, regardless of how built. Social proof is a primary avenue to that and has little to do with how built.

pritambarhate 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even billion dollar software products have similar clauses, it doesn't have anything to do with vibe coding. To build and sell software no educational qualification is needed.

Quality of the software comes from testing. Humans and LLMs both make mistakes while coding.

tracker1 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

As an autodidact, and someone who has seen plenty of well educated idiots in the software profession, I'm happy there are no such requirements... I think a guild might be more reasonable than a professional org more akin to how it works for other groups (lawyers, doctors, etc).

There are of course projects that operate at higher development specification standards, often in the military or banking. This should be extended to all vehicles and invasive medical devices.

tracker1 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends on the building type/size/scale and jurisdiction. Modern tract homes are really varied, hit or miss and often don't see any negative outcomes for the builders in question for shoddy craftsmanship.

pebble 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it's more like the architect has a cousin who is like "I totally got this bro" and builds the building for them.

foobarbecue 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Right and also in this world there are no building codes or building inspections.

heliumtera 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Every single commit is Claude. No human expert involved. Would you trust your company database to an 25 dollars vibe session? Would you live in a 5 dollars building? Is there any difference from hand tailored suit, constructed to your measurements, and a 5 dollars t-shirt? Some people don't want to live in a five dollars world.

wahnfrieden 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Agent authorship doesn't imply unreviewed or underspecified code

heliumtera 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Vibe coded means precisely that!

wahnfrieden 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes but there’s no evidence this is vibe coded or not. You’re cynically claiming it due to agent authorship. As if there is no legitimate use.

> No human expert involved

You don’t know this, you are just hating.