Comment by voidhorse

I get the impetus behind the term and I think it's a good article with a lot of practical advice overall, however I am disheartened by the terminology on two fronts:

1. It is confusing in the sense that all other engineering disciplines have the form "<X> engineering" where X is the object being engineered. This makes it sound like we are engineering vibes, not software. 2. Software engineering was already only marginally worthy of the term "engineering". There is a strong subset of computational system building that I think actually meets the standard of engineering (rigorously understanding requirements and system bounds, probably showing that the system achieves stability within those bounds). This just makes that situation worse. The devil is in the details, and over-reliance on llms ultimately makes those details a black box to the designer. Before you claim it's the same as when a designer relies on a suite of humans—no. The designer can ask those humans for reverentially transparent proofs that certain conditions are upheld, there is a social accountability structure, etc etc all of which does not exist with LLMs even if they get good enough that we can just trust them.

If we are going to keep calling software construction engineering, can we please at least get industry wide standards around ethics before we go off vibing? There's so much that we still sorely need in order to really make this discipline rigorous and socially accountable in the first place.