Maybe this developer didn't bother I didn't even look frankly.

My point was that you can have very well designed and thoughted apps with LLMs. In fact, I'd argue you can go way further and deeper than any manual coded application paired with AI assistance.

But maybe this instance is not the case. But even if it turns out to be not the case, if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it? People use many things in everyday life without thinking about what thought was put into it..in fact, most people don't think at all about what it took to build anything, and how it was built..

Do you really know or care if the shoes you wearing was handmade or built by a factory in china using robots? you probably don't know and don't care.

▲

stetrain 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> My point was that you can have very well designed and thoughted apps with LLMs.

If that were the case here, then a user of the app probably would not come away with the impression that it was a "very much LLM-aided app."

You're talking about how LLMs can be used in such a way that they help production of an app but remain invisible to the end user. But the beginning of this thread was someone using the app and coming away with the impression that it was heavily LLM influenced, which suggests that it was not done thoughtfully and did not remain invisible to the user.

▲

aogaili 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I get it, and frankly I don't know about this app.

But the parent comment positioned itself against all "LLM-aided apps", the author didn't say a slop or poorly coded. And even if it looks like LLM coded, we still can't tell about the level of thought that went into it. Developers had many poorly coded UIs and yet the apps functioned well and served it's purpose.

So the entire chain of reasoning is a form stereotype forming. Looking at this specific app, I can see that the author thought about the marketing/business and functionality, more than other alternatives, maybe because they had more mental bandwdith to do so.

▲

n4r9 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair, I personally only said that I'd like a label that indicates whether an app has "had thought put into it". That could involve e.g. another human reviewing the code and architecture and giving it a stamp.

	▲	aogaili an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You are right - my apologies. It could be a good idea given that we will end up with so many doubts and comments like this.

▲

stetrain 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t see how this comment is “against all LLM-aided apps.”

> But... I get a "buy merch" popup the moment I open the page, and there seems to be a pro option for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? ...IDK, rubs off a bit wrong IMO. Just my personal opinion.”

Again, if the user of the app comes away with the impression that the app “seems to be a very much LLM-aided” then the LLM usage has affected the end product.

▲

ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it?

Take a step back and think about your question in the context of privacy and software security.

For a few example answers, look at:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)

▲

aogaili an hour ago | parent [-]

But what does this has to do with LLM-assisted coding? I wouldn't trust this app even it was manually coded.

In fact, given the recent reports, in terms of security, one is better off consulting LLMs on the exposure surfaces. Something a solo developer can now do cheaply but in the past required a lot of specialized knowledge.

Sorry I don't understand your argument.

▲

ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent [-]

> But what does this has to do with LLM-assisted coding?

What does "LLM-assisted coding" have to do with the question I answered? Here's that question again:

> if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it?

Note that this question does not contain any reference to "LLMs". Indeed, an LLM-generated product can contain adware, spyware, or trojan horses just like a human-written one.

For additional context, this app in question seems to actually contain adware and spyware, and has a closed source codebase, so might contain a trojan horse as well.

Those seem like pretty good reasons to not run this totally-vibe-coded software, so I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument that LLMs make this okay or not okay or whatever.

▲

aogaili an hour ago | parent [-]

I get it - I think there mis-communication here.

My comment was about not equating every LLM assisted app as poorly thought of. Your comment is about this specific app, and I personally would not install this app regardless of how it was coded.

But again in terms of security since you brought it, I'd argue that having LLM assisted coded app might be secure than manually coded application given the recent advancements. Again, this is a generic statement, not specific to this app.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The original discussion was not about every LLM assisted app, it was specifically about vibe-coded apps, particularly ones with so little human input that experienced coders can tell they were vibe-coded. Your later comments generalizing to "every LLM assisted app" seem like a bit of insecurity you might be feeling for using LLM assistance. No need to feel that way. LLM assistance is okay. We're discussing something different from mere LLM assistance.