> You don't _have_ to turn you brain off when coding with an LLM. It's not some intelligence dementor. If your brain turned off while you were vibe coding

You have too, because that's the definition of vibe coding. If you use an LLM to assist you, but still keep your brain on, that's not vibe coding.

▲

zeroxfe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> because that's the definition of vibe coding.

That's _your_ definition of vibe coding.

	▲	danlitt an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists" If that's not "turning your brain off", what is?
	▲	freedomben 26 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What is your definition? Is there any difference between AI assisted development and vibe coding to you?
	▲	1718627440 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's the definition I am aware of, yes. It's also in the term, that you let a vibe (a force coming from the outside) decide what your work lead to, as opposed as to deciding where it should arrive at and leading into that direction.

▲

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

Feels like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

	▲	1718627440 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How so? The property Scotsman is existing a priori and then a causality to behaviour is assumed. But here the term is defined by behaviour.
	▲	pdpi 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There's multiple ways to program using LLMs, so using different words for different styles is a useful distinction. Of course, you absolutely can build a No True Scotsman argument on top of that distinction, but I don't think that's what GP was doing.
	▲	danlitt an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		By that logic every appeal to the truth is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

▲

alostpuppy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree. It’s actually more exhausting in some ways.