Comment by ActorNightly

12 days ago

Its really becoming a good litmus test for how someones coding ability whether they think LLMS can do well on complex tasks.

For example, someone may ask an LLM to write a simple http web server, and it can do that fine, and they consider that complex, when in reality its really not.

It’s not. There are tons of great programmers, that are big names in the industry who now exclusively vibe code. Many of these names are obviously intelligent and great programmers.

This is an extremely false statement.

  • People use "vibe coding" to mean different things - some mean the original Karpathy "look ma, no hands!", feel the vibez, thing, and some just (confusingly) use "vibe coding" to refer to any use of AI to write code, including treating it as a tool to write small well-defined parts that you have specified, as opposed to treating it as a magic genie.

    There also seem to be people hearing big names like Karpathy and Linus Torvalds say they are vibe coding on their hobby projects, meaning who knows what, and misunderstanding this as being an endorsement of "magic genie" creation of professional quality software.

    Results of course also vary according to how well what you are asking the AI to do matches what it was trained on. Despite sometimes feeling like it, it is not a magic genie - it is a predictor that is essentially trying to best match your input prompt (maybe a program specification) to pieces of what it was trained on. If there is no good match, then it'll have a go anyway, and this is where things tend to fall apart.

    • Funny, the last interview I watched with Karpathy he highlighted the way the AI/LLM was unable to think in a way that aligned with his codebase. He described vibe-coding a transition from Python to Rust but specifically called out that he hand-coded all of the python code due to weaknesses in LLM's ability to handle performant code. I'm pretty sure this was the last Dwarkesh interview with "LLMs as ghosts".

      1 reply →

  • How many more appeal-to-authority counter arguments are going to be made in this thread

    • They are more effective then on the ground in your face evidence largely because people who are so against AI are blind to it.

      I hold a result of AI in front of your face and they still proclaim it’s garbage and everything else is fraudulent.

      Let’s be clear. You’re arguing against a fantasy. Nobody even proponents of AI claims that AI is as good as humans. Nowhere near it. But they are good enough for pair programming. That is indisputable. Yet we have tons of people like you who stare at reality and deny it and call it fraudulent.

      Examine the lay of the land if that many people are so divided it really means both perspectives are correct in a way.

      8 replies →

  • Non sequitor.

    You don't have to be bad at coding to use LLMs. The argument was specifically about thinking that LLMS can be great at accomplishing complex tasks (which they are not)

  • Yeah, take Ryan Dahl:

    His tweets were getting ~40k views average. He made his big proclamation about AI and boom viral 7 million

    This is happening over, and over, and over again

    I'm not saying he's making shit up but you're naive if you don't think they're slightly tempted by the clear reaction this content gets

    • He’d get an equivalent reaction for talking shit about AI. Anyway it’s not just him. Plenty of other people.