Hacker News Reader

Comment by hu3 | Hacker News Reader

The idea that everyone using LLMs is vibe coding is equally hilarious.

If you use an LLM to generate source code you are vibecoding.

You specify the problem in natural language (the vibes) and the LLM spits out source (the code).

Whether you review it or not, that is vibecoding. You did not go through the rigor of translating the requirements to a programming language, you had a nondeterministic black box generate something in the rough general vicinity of the prompt.

Are people seriously trying to redefine what vibecoding is?

> If you use an LLM to generate source code you are vibecoding

No, you're not.

> Are people seriously trying to redefine what vibecoding is?

Yes, you are.

No, that is literally vibecoding. Reviewing vibecoded source is just an extra step. It's like saying "I'm not power toolgardening, I use a pair of gardening scissors afterwards." You still did power tool gardening.

As additional proof, the dictionary definition of vibe coding is "the use of artificial intelligence prompted by natural language to assist with the writing of computer code" [1]

It seems like vibecoders don't like the label and are retconning the term.

[1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vibe-co...

Both you and the Collins dictionary (merely one dictionary, not an absolute anuthority) are retconning. “Vibe coding”, as originally coined in this tweet, means something more specific: to generate code with LLMs and not really look at the output. The term itself suggests this too: reviewing code is not exactly a vibes-based activity, is it?

https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

Here's Merriam Webster with the same definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibe%20coding

That tweet coins the term, we agree there. The activity it describes is using natural language to generate software. Whether you add a review process or not doesn't substantially change that. Sure, Karpathy says he doesn't "read the diffs anymore". Why does he say "anymore"? Clearly he was reading them at some point. If not reading any diffs was a core part of the activity, that wouldn't be the case, the tweet itself clearly outlines that as optional. He's clearly not talking about a core part of the activity.

I think the tweet is pretty clear on its intention for the definition and I’m not interested in arguing about it.

I do think the dictionary definitions, such as they are, are coming from a real place: some people do use the more general definition. And you seem to already know about both definitions. So why argue so belligerently and definitively in the first place? Parent comments you were replying to were obviously using the original definition. Talking about “retconning” is obviously silly given this timeline. Meaning in language is not a race to be the first to make it into a dictionary. It’s a very new phenomenon that new terms make it so quickly into a dictionary at all, and they’re always under review. So maybe factor that into your commentary?

Because I believe the broad definition is more widely used, I also don't think the narrow term is useful or meaningful, and I think it's being used purely by vibe coding practitioners who feel that the term has negative connotations.

This all started with the parent comment telling someone else (belligerently and definitively) using the broader definition that they were wrong.

The narrow term is very useful, there is obviously a world of difference between reviewing the output of an LLM and not - the latter is irresponsible. It shouldn’t be surprising that people bristle when being accused of it. It doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of redefining a term to make themselves feel better when the history of the term shows that yours is the redefinition. The simpler explanation is that the accused just doesn’t like being called irresponsible - not that they’re trying to defend LLM code generation from someone who doesn’t like it.

You're saying what I'm saying. They feel self conscious about the term "vibe coding".

And to be clear, nobody accused the people who lashed out here. They reacted to general statements that people are vibe coding.

I also don't understand why the term vibe coding couldn't contain a spectrum of responsible use. Just say you're reviewing your vibe coded commits!

Clearly the issue here is about how vibe coders perceive the term vibe coding. Some of them feel that it's demeaning and are trying to wiggle their way out of the label by arguing semantics.

No, people think it’s demeaning because they are using a different definition to you, the definition which was the original one. Don’t know how I can put it clearer.

You say no, but then you agree that they think it's demeaning. Are you saying no just to say no, because you dislike how I'm framing this?

I don't think you've shown that the narrow definition is the original one. That's just a claim with no evidence or argument for it.

If you think the tweet is that evidence, I disagree. The tweet itself could be used to support both definitions. Personally I think it's more inline with the broader definition (see previous posts in this thread).

I think the tweet is crystal clear evidence that “vibe coding” was meant to mean “LLM code generation without reviewing the generated code”. Plenty of other parent commenters in this thread clearly think the same. Think what you like, but your interpretation is very strange, and the pushback and downvotes you’re getting is because of that.

This is still not an argument.

You are still just stating opinions without any arguments. If you think the tweet is crystal clear evidence of your point, please show why. If you think my interpretation is strange (even though I've already shown you two normative sources that agree with me), please show why.

Look, there's already a term for unreviewed nonsensical genAI output: slop. The original tweet does not comment on the quality of the cod; slop otoh is specifically about the quality of the output. Call it slop if you want to specify that it's unreviewed.

Downvotes are not proof of anything. I'm getting roughly 0.5 downvotes per post, that's to be expected when multiple people are disagreeing with me about something they care about. And HN has been flooded by LLM enthusiasts for the past couple of years. This is not surprising.

Correct, I'm not making an argument on the quality of the evidence, I'm expressing a different opinion and explaining the disconnect. I'm not interested in convincing you as I don't think that will happen, but I did think that you were missing a distinction and could understand the difference even if you thought differently. Apparently not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com