Mind you, I'm not saying it's bad per se. But shouldn't we be open and honest about this?
I wonder if this is the new normal. Somebody says "I built Xyz" but then you realize it's vibe coded.
In such cases the person says, I have built this building. People who found companies, say they have built companies. It's commonly accepted in our society.
So even if Claude built for it for GP, as long as GP designed it, paid for tools (Claude) to build it, also tested it to make sure that it works, I personally think, he has right to say he has built it.
If you don't like it, you are not required to use it.
Meanwhile this vibe coded nonsense is provided “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. We don’t even know if he read it before committing and pushing.
Quality of the software comes from testing. Humans and LLMs both make mistakes while coding.
There are of course projects that operate at higher development specification standards, often in the military or banking. This should be extended to all vehicles and invasive medical devices.
But here's the problem. Five years ago, when someone on here said, "I wrote this non-trivial software", the implication was that a highly motivated and competent software engineer put a lot of effort into making sure that the project meets a reasonable standard of quality and will probably put some effort into maintaining the project.
Today, it does not necessarily imply that. We just don't know.
Most of the vibe-code I’ve seen so far appears functional to the point that people will defend it, but if you take a closer look it’s a massively over complicated rat’s nest that would be difficult for a human to extend or maintain. Of course you could just use more AI, but that would only further amplify these problems.
If someone puts weeks and months of their time into building something, then I'm willing to take that as proof of their motivation to create something good.
I'm also willing to take the existence of non-trivial code that someone wrote manually as proof of some level of competence.
The presence of motivation + competence makes it more likely that the result could be something good.
People using LLMs to code these days is similar to how majority people stopped using assembly and moved to C and C++, then to garbage collected languages and dynamically typed languages. People were always looking for ways to make programmers more productive.
Programming is evolving. LLMs are just next generation programming tools. They make programmers more productive and in majority of the cases people and companies are going to use them more and more.
I'm just saying that we don't know how much effort was put into making this and we don't know whether it works.
The existence of a repository containing hundereds of files, thousands of SLOCs and a folder full of tests tells us less today than it used to.
There's one thing in particular that I find quite astonishing sometimes. I don't know about this particular project, but some people use LLMs to generate both the implementation and the test cases.
What does that mean? The test cases are supposed to be the formal specification of our requirements. If we do not specify formally what we expect a tool to do, how do we know whether the tool has done what we expected, including in edge cases?
> The test cases are supposed to be the formal specification of our requirements
Formal methods folks would strongly disagree with this statement. Tests are informal specifications in the sense that they don't provide a formal (mathematically rigorous) description of the full expected behavior of the system. Instead, they offer a mere glimpse into what we hope the system would do.
And that's an important part, which is where your main point stands. The test is what confirms that the thing the LLM built conforms to the cases the human expected to behave in a certain way. That's why the human needs to provide them.
(The human could take help of an LLM to write the tests, as in they give an even-more-informal natural language description of what the test should do. But the human then needs to make sure that the test really does that and maybe fill in some gaps.)
You don’t. That’s the scary part. Up until now, this was somewhat solved by injecting artificial friction. A bank that takes 5 days for a payment to clear. And so on.
But it’s worse than this, because most problems software solves cannot even be understood until you partially solve the problem. It’s the trying and failing that reveals the gap, usually by someone who only recognizes the gap because they were once embarrassed by it, and what they hear rhymes with their pain. AI doesn’t interface with physical reality, as far as we know, or have any mechanism to course correct like embarrassment or pain.
In the future, we will have flown off the cliff before we even know there was a problem. We will be on a space ship going so fast that we can’t see the asteroid until it’s too la...
That is entirely an assumption on the part of the reader. Nothing about someone saying "I built this complicated thing!" implies competence, or any desire to maintain it beyond building it.
The problem you're facing is survivorship bias. You can think of lots of examples of where that has happened, and very few where it hasn't, because when the author of the project is incompetent or unmotivated the project doesn't last long enough for you to hear about it twice.
I disagree. The fact that someone has written a substantial amount of non-trivial code does imply a higher level of competence and motivation compared to not having done that.
You never knew. There are plenty of intelligent, well-intentioned software engineers that publish FOSS that is buggy and doesn’t meet some arbitrary quality standards.
When you order a website on upwork - you didn't build it. You bought it.
> No human expert involved
You don’t know this, you are just hating.
Besides the close review and specification that may be conducted with agents, even if you handwrite / edit code, it will say that it was co-authored by the agent if you have the agent do the commit for you.
But this is also bad, because it's wrong. They drew it and maybe got some paperwork through a planning department. They didn't build it.
If someone used AI, it is a good discussion to see whether they should explicitly disclose it, but people have been using assisted tools, from auto-complete, text expanders, IDE refactoring tools, for a while - and you wouldn't make a comment that they didn't build it. The lines are becoming more blurry over time, but it is ridiculous to claim that someone didn't build something if they used AI tools.
Do you take issue with a CNC machinist stating that they made something, rather than stating that they did the CAD and CAM work but that it was the CNC machine that made the part?
Non-zero delegation doesn’t mean that the person(s) doing the delegating have put zero effort into making something, so I don’t think that delegation makes it dishonest to say that you made something. But perhaps you disagree. Or, maybe you think the use of AI means that the person using AI isn’t putting any constructive effort into what was made — but then I’d say that you’re likely way overestimating the ability of LLMs.
> Nowhere have I claimed that they didn't put work into this.
There's some mental gymnastics.
> please counter the opinion that I gave
The reply your responding to did exactly that, and you just gave more snarky responses.
We wouldn’t have called it reviewed in the old world, but in the AI coding world we’re now in it makes me realise that yes, it is a form of reviewing.
I use Claude a lot btw. But I wouldn’t trust it on mission critical stuff.
Or at least I cannot come up with a usecase for prod.
From that perspective, it feels like it'd be a perfect usecase to embrace the LLM guided development jank
App migrations that may fail and need a rollback have the problem that you may not be allowed to wipe any transactions so you may want to be putting data to a parallel world that didn't migrate.
This is why migrations are supposed to be backwards compatible
You can certainly bet you followed that advice correctly, now what are the odds you could test a what-if like that in sufficient depth?
> Eh, DB branching is mostly only necessary for testing - locally
Again, I love Claude, I use it a ton, but a topic like database cloning requires a certain rigour in my opinion. This repo does not seem to have it. If I had hired a consultant to build a tool like this and would receive this amount of vibe coding, I’d feel deceived. I wouldn’t trust it on my critical data.
This is where it belongs, at best. He doesn't even have to disclose it. Prompting so that the ai writes the code faster than you is okay.
Everybody in the industry is vibecoding right now - the things that stick are due to sufficient quality being pushed on it. Having a pessimistic / judgmental surface reaction to everything as being "ai slop" is not something that I'm going to look forward in my behavior.
Why good faith is a requirement for commenting but not for submissions? I would argue the good faith assumption should be disproportionately more important for submissions given the 1 to many relationship. You're not lying, it indeed is toxic and rapidly spreading. I'm glad this is the case.
Most came here for the discussion and enlightenment to be bombarded by heavily biased, low effort marketing bullshit. Presenting something that has no value to anyone besides the builder is the opposite of good faith. This submissions bury and neglect useful discussion, difficult to claim they are harmless and just not useful.
Not everyone in the industry is vibe coding, that is simply not true. but that's not the point I want to make. You don't need to be defensive about your generative tools usage, it is ok to use whatever, nobody cares. Just be ready to maintain your position and defend your ideals. Nothing is more frustrating then giving honest attention to a problem, considering someone else perspective, to just then realize it was just words words words spewed by slop machine. Nobody would give a second thought if that was disclosed. You are responsible for your craft. The moment you delegate that responsibility into the thrash you belong. If the slop machine is so great, why in hell would I need you to ask it to help me? Nonsensical.
The reason this discussion is pathetic, is that it shifts the discussion from the main topic (here it was a database implementation) - to abide by a reactionary emotive emulation with no grace or eloquence - that is mostly driven by pop culture at this point with a justification mostly shaping your ego.
There is no point in putting yourself above someone else just to justify your behavior - in fact it only tells me what kind of person you were in the first place - and as I said, this is not the kind of attitude that i'm looking up to.
no ‘everybody’ is not. a lot of us are using zero LLMs and continuing to build (quality) software just fine
https://github.com/elitan/velo/blame/12712e26b18d0935bfb6c6e...
And are we really doing this? Do we need to admit how every line of code was produced? Why? Are you expecting to see "built with the influence of Stackoverflow answers" or "google searches" on every single piece of software ever? It's an exercise of pointlessness.
> We would like to acknowledge the open source people, who are the traditional custodians of this code. We pay our respects to the stack overflow elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, the code and libraries that $program sits upon, their work. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the search engine for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding
Then if you would kindly say that a Brazilian invented the airplane that would be good too. If you don’t do this you should be cancelled for your heinous crime.
lol, good one!
last I checked, Wright brothers used a catapult while Santos-Dumont made a plane that took off by itself.
Edit: So it looks like the Wright brothers had catapult but didn't actually need it (their claim-to-fame flights didn't use it), but did otherwise need a "dolly" (a wooden cart, not a catapult) because the plane didn't have wheels attached to it. Then also Santos-Dumont was declared first in Europe because he demonstrated it in Paris during a period bad reporting had people in Europe questioning the legitimacy of the Wright brothers' flight.