I don't want to change that sentence now that people have discussed it, but I have added a note to the top to make it clear that I'm just taking it as an example of a vibe-coded program because it's recent and high profile.

My critiques of the language itself are not the main point, although I do still think that it's a very bad design to have a LLM waste tokens on a proof that could be written by CVC etc..

▲

littleroot 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>I don't want to change that sentence

>but I have added a note to the top

you know what's the least you could actually have done instead? no, you don't need to retract the blog post at all, keeping it up was the right choice. Now slap a big ass apology for being an unaware snob on top of it instead of leaving a link to the author's reply, like an after thought.

▲

killerstorm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Look like how AI slop has unrealistic physics

> Posts a link to real moon landing footage

I'd delete the article if I was you...

You know, in academia, they sometimes retract articles, even if they believe they are directionally correct

▲

LiamPowell 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel that that's the worst option because it only leaves people who have read it without the added context at the start. If someone convinces me that I'm wrong then I'm happy to do so though.

	▲	gf000 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You should add a strikethrough to your post and post a public apology to the author.

▲

jibal 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm just taking it as an example

But this is grossly intellectually dishonest. You know very well how this will be read and responded to here ... and you keep saying that you're just talking about vibe-coding oh but you have serious criticisms of the specific effort. You write passive-aggressive stuff like

> For all I know they did make an informed decision regarding the tradeoffs (which I would consider to be a poor decision).

which contradicts your base assertion that their decisions were not informed. And

> My critiques of the language itself are not the main point, although I do still think that it's a very bad design ...

You claim

> The developer has built an entire language around a field seemingly without realising that said field exists.

but that is severely factually wrong, which along with a lot else suggests that you have very bad judgment. As the author writes,

> Bend proofs being verbose has nothing to do with me not knowing that inference, unification, or program search exists.

IOW, you have made a serious error in logic.

> To be fair to Bend, I completely vibe-coded this

Some advice: DBAD

You trashed the author and his work without bothering to learn anything about either one first (which is quite ironic).

I won't respond further.