| ▲ | simonw 3 hours ago | |||||||
I think the borderline is when you take responsibility for the code, and stop blaming the LLM for any mistakes. That's the level of responsibility I want to see from people using LLMs in a professional context. I want them to take full ownership of the changes they are producing. | ||||||||
| ▲ | zx8080 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Sounds good, however the bar is probably too far and far too idealistic. The effects of vibecoding destroys trust inside teams and orgs, between engineers. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Toutouxc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
And are you not seeing that level of responsibility? | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | maxbond 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I don't blame the agent for mistakes in my vibe coded personal software, it's always my fault. To me it's like this: 80%+: You don't understand the codebase. Correctness is ensured through manual testing and asking the agent to find bugs. You're only concerned with outcomes, the code is sloppy. 50%: You understand the structure of the codebase, you are skimming changes in your session, but correctness is still ensured mostly through manual testing and asking the agent to review. Code quality is questionable but you're keeping it from spinning out of control. Critically, you are hands on enough to ensure security, data integrity, the stuff that really counts at the end of the day. 20%-: You've designed the structure of the codebase, you are writing most of the code, you are probably only copypasting code from a chatbot if you're generating code at all. The code is probably well made and maintainable. | ||||||||
| ||||||||