People use two definitions.

There's this definition of LLM generation + "no thorough review or testing"

And there's the more normative one: just LLM generation.[1][2][3]

"Not even looking at it" is very difficult as part of a definition. What if you look at it once? Or just glance at it? Is it now no longer vibe coding? What if I read a diff every ten commits? Or look at the code when something breaks?

At which point is it no longer vibe coding according to this narrower definition?

[1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vibe-co...

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibe%20coding

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding

It's a bit absurd that a semantic debate is happening over a term coined in someone's shower thought tweet. Maybe the real problem is that it's just a stupid phrase that should never have been taken so seriously. But here we are...

If you do not know the code at all, and are going off of "vibes", it's vibecoding. If you can get a deep sense of what is going on in the code based off of looking at a diff every ten commits, then that's not vibe coding (I, myself, are unable to get a sense from that little of a look).

If you actually look at the code and understand it and you'd stand by it, then it's not vibecode. If you had an LLM shit it out in 20 minutes and you don't really know what going on, it's vibecode. Which, to me, is not derogatory. I have a bunch of stuff I've vibecoded and a bunch of stuff that I've actually read the code and fixed it, either by hand or with LLM assistance. And ofc, all the code that was written by me prior to ChatGPT's launch.

we really need some more precise terms here to make that line clear: something like "black-box vibe coding" vs "gray-box vibe coding"