Most active commenters
  • cortesoft(3)

←back to thread

All vibe coding tools are selling a get rich quick scheme

(varunraghu.com)
129 points Varun08 | 12 comments | 09 Sep 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 1.016s | source | bottom
Show context
cramsession ◴[09 Sep 25 22:47 UTC] No.45190469[source]▶
The trick is that you have to be a good coder to get the most out of "vibe" coding. It works great for me, but I deploy all of the knowledge I've acquired over the decades as a professional developer. You need to know how to architect systems, what data structures and algorithms to ask for, how to design a product, many facets of graphic and user interface design, how to parcel out work, how to parallelize tasks. Even which ideas are worth pursuing is an intuition you build up over years. "Vibe" coding really is magic and I'm highly scaled, but I don't see how it could possibly work for all but the most senior developers. In some sense, it's like writing LISP macros on steroids.
replies(10): >>45190657 #>>45190885 #>>45191035 #>>45191109 #>>45191139 #>>45191169 #>>45191530 #>>45191570 #>>45192419 #>>45196027 #
1. cortesoft ◴[09 Sep 25 23:23 UTC] No.45190885[source]▶
I 100% agree that this is how the experience is right now.

I don't necessarily think it will stay this way, though. The tools are so new, we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully.

replies(4): >>45190980 #>>45190984 #>>45191033 #>>45192734 #
2. netsharc ◴[09 Sep 25 23:31 UTC] No.45190980[source]▶
Isn't it a subset of "understanding".. AI as we have them currently emulates something that understands us. If you ask it to write a program, how would a non-coder know if the output of the emulated understanding is accurate enough as code, or a miss?

Reminds me of the joke:

int getRandom() {

  return 4; // chosen by a dice, guaranteed to be random

}
replies(2): >>45191079 #>>45191128 #
3. dmitrygr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:31 UTC] No.45190984[source]▶
> we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully

Care to put some money behind this fantastical claim, in a bet?

replies(1): >>45191002 #
4. cortesoft ◴[09 Sep 25 23:34 UTC] No.45191002[source]▶
Sure, if you granted me odds commiserate with my statement that "you can't be so sure", meaning I would get like 99-1 odds.

I wasn't saying it will certainly reach the point where non-coders can code, I am saying we can't be certain it won't just because it can't yet

replies(1): >>45191153 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[09 Sep 25 23:36 UTC] No.45191033[source]▶
Reality is often disappointing. The reality is that this is sold to people who don't know how to code as a way to code. Even if the theory is that an engineer can make the best use of it (whether or not it helps is another debate).
6. latexr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:42 UTC] No.45191079[source]▶
> Reminds me of the joke

Source: https://xkcd.com/221/

7. JSteph22 ◴[09 Sep 25 23:47 UTC] No.45191128[source]▶
>how would a non-coder know if the output if the emulated understanding is accurate

QA for non-AI code is limited at best to begin with, why would AI code be any different?

8. dmitrygr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:49 UTC] No.45191153{3}[source]▶
1:1 odds, but i'll give you a huge (tech-wise) time horizon of, say, 3 years?
replies(2): >>45192816 #>>45199371 #
9. actsasbuffoon ◴[10 Sep 25 03:09 UTC] No.45192734[source]▶
I disagree, at least for the next 5 years or so.

Even with humans, it’s very common to ask them for something and get something back that’s completely different than what you wanted. Short of reading your mind, AI is going to require a lot of info to get the desired result.

So someone is going to have to gather requirements and break them down into a clear, well thought out set of instructions for the computer. That’s literally what programmers already do. We’re just programming in a different language now.

replies(1): >>45194115 #
10. anon22981 ◴[10 Sep 25 03:23 UTC] No.45192816{4}[source]▶
Since you are only willing to go for 1:1 odds with a 3 year timeframe, I assume you are in agreement that it might happen? Otherwise I’m sure you would give him better odds with a larger timeframe :)
11. sixtyj ◴[10 Sep 25 06:43 UTC] No.45194115[source]▶
In the past, we depended on editors that were easy to switch. Now coders are becoming dependent on tools that are hard to switch off.

And I’ve realized that even when I try to stay in control, I often don’t read the output code—I just copy and paste.

Metaphorically, it’s like pilots who know how to use the autopilot, but can’t switch back to manual control. That’s the generation of coders we’re raising.

12. cortesoft ◴[10 Sep 25 15:43 UTC] No.45199371{4}[source]▶
Ha, no I am thinking more like 10-20 years, or maybe even longer. But I know from experience that 10-20 years goes by faster than you think.