I like how they say they don't vibe in this comment, and then that they don't read the code anymore in just the previous comment in their comment history.
Now? Intelligence agencies have been doing this for decades. There’s a reason social media and the web had some much money and support behind its adoption, and why the US in particular forces its view of free speech worldwide, it’s a way to weaponize opinion.
I have almost certainty by now that half of the web is just bots steering the narrative of humans, because I’ve never seen so much non sense being normalized in my life. Dish soap drinking level I mean.
You can also see a recent comment of theirs saying they "don't look at code any more" but in this comment they say they "still require a code review" for changes.
Actually it's fully measurable but no one who's making these claims ever seems to want to measure it, nor share data in a public way so that others could measure it.
What we do see publicly is OSS projects overrun with poor submissions, for example.
>Or he's just giving a sane take, one that most people in the Bay Area have by now.
I don't know what the Bay Area note is supposed to mean in the context of the whole post - unless you want to reinforce that it surely means that it's a sane take... In which case, I'm not certain the non-Bay readers would agree that it comes from an unbiased culture.
Help me understand how your above comment[0] squares with your previous one[1].
Above, you said:
> We still require a code review for any change
And:
> We don't really vibe though. At least I don't. I see it more as comment driven development. I need to understand the code and what I want to achieve where in the codebase
I've been here since 2008 and I'll say it. Vividfrier is a bot. The people behind the likes of vividfrier are vandals, shitting all over the commons just to get even more than the massive amount they have already been given.
HN was a tremendous resource built by its members and the moderators. In the last year or so a lot of that has been destroyed by people who have no sense of decency. They see deception as a virtue. They call it hustle or whatever. WTF?
My view is write the code that matters to you and that you want or need to be proficient with. If you need to defend, explain or discuss code, you are better off writing it yourself.
If nuclear power scientists claimed they had a bomb that could level an entire city, Hiroshima would prove them correct.
vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.
If Hiroshima were the only big public nuclear plant around the world, then yes, the aftermath of Hiroshima would provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power.
That seems like an odd way to interpret what they wrote.
Imagine old school machinists saying to a CNC machinist “Ha! See, maybe you don’t jog the axes manually, but you still have to be involved in placing the stock material, and you have to do the CAD/CAM work - so did it really machine the part for you? No!”
AI is a tool like any other. It has its limitations. It has classes of problems that it is suited to handle, and others it isn’t. If it’s true that they haven’t written (as in “typed out by hand”) a single line of code, why can’t they say that without you making that statement into more than it is?
I haven’t written a single line of code in 6 months, and that’s simply fact. It is also true that I put in a lot of other work to make that feasible, but that work isn’t in the form of writing code.
“it’s mature and the next step of engineering”
Tautologically, it’s mature enough for what it is mature enough for, and it certainly is the next step in the same way that CNC was the next step for machining — if you’re not using it as a machinist, you’re going to produce less compared to those who are.
Same thing with garden hoses. Yes, you can go fetch water from a lake and splash it on your lawn, or, you know, you could just use a sprinkler connected to your garden hose. Doesn’t replace buckets. Buckets just have a narrower scope in a world where garden hoses exist.
I'm sorry but both of these are false equivalences. CNC isn't about making general machining operations faster or necessarily better. It's about making a single machine more versatile. Instead of needing an assembly line of machines you can get a bunch of different operations done on the same part without moving it to a different machine. You can also do compound operations that were otherwise highly specialized (like milling a turbocharger's radial compressor wheel). You can get the same job done with a series of manual operations though.
A garden hose vs a bucket is also the same situation. You can accomplish the same thing with either, but one might be more labor intensive.
AI is nothing like either of those. It would be like instead of a bucket you get a garden hose that points in a different direction every time you try to use it. Or instead of a 5 axis mill that rigorously executes the g-code it just randomly reinterprets tool paths each time it cuts a part. Both of these things would be worse than useless in their respective applications.
AI is different because it plays to the pliability of the software domain. Even fairly shitty, irreproducible results can be good enough for software development, if you don't look at it too closely. Make analogies to the physical world at your peril!
> AI is nothing like either of those. It would be like instead of a bucket you get a garden hose that points in a different direction every time you try to use it.
There is a reason why such discussions about CNC machines never happened. I wonder what it cculd be? Becausw their output is better than man-made atuff? Because they are reliable? Because their manufacturers generally don't lie?
I think discussion with open registration is doomed precisely for this reason, it is too open to being influenced by bad actors. Maybe the lobste.rs invitation model would be better ...
What's up with all the new accounts astroturfing AI? There are multiple in these threads. People from the 'foundation model' companies having to keep up the AI hype?
Usually they provide grandiose claims (like the top-level comment) without any evidence or just anecdotal evidence that is not verifiable.
not an astroturf and didn’t want to be associated with my main which has identifying info. Wanted to offer a perspective aside from the majority skeptic view on HN
[flagged]
I like how they say they don't vibe in this comment, and then that they don't read the code anymore in just the previous comment in their comment history.
Where did they say they don’t read code?
> We still require a code review for any change and it's becoming a bottleneck - for sure
2 replies →
Gosh that is a dark pattern! Now we need to be aware of injected opinions to control the narrative.
Now? Intelligence agencies have been doing this for decades. There’s a reason social media and the web had some much money and support behind its adoption, and why the US in particular forces its view of free speech worldwide, it’s a way to weaponize opinion.
I have almost certainty by now that half of the web is just bots steering the narrative of humans, because I’ve never seen so much non sense being normalized in my life. Dish soap drinking level I mean.
Injected opinions have existed long before LLMs.
In a way, obvious injected opinions benefit culture, by making formerly-unaware readers skeptical.
[dead]
[dead]
You can also see a recent comment of theirs saying they "don't look at code any more" but in this comment they say they "still require a code review" for changes.
Pretty sus, bot or otherwise.
Or he's just giving a sane take, one that most people in the Bay Area have by now.
Lots of tech companies are doing just fine with purely AI written code at this point.
Saying that the quality is getting worse in some immeasurable way (while incidents remain the same) is literally unfalsifiable.
Actually it's fully measurable but no one who's making these claims ever seems to want to measure it, nor share data in a public way so that others could measure it.
What we do see publicly is OSS projects overrun with poor submissions, for example.
1 reply →
> Lots of tech companies are doing just fine with purely AI written code at this point.
If there are so many, surely you or one of the other AI supporters have a public example?
I’m aware of two examples, although they’re (mostly routine) translation with existing test infrastructure, so easier for an LLM:
- Bun’s rewrite, although we haven’t seen the effects on further development
- Ladybird’s rewrite, which seems to be continuing fine
>Or he's just giving a sane take, one that most people in the Bay Area have by now.
I don't know what the Bay Area note is supposed to mean in the context of the whole post - unless you want to reinforce that it surely means that it's a sane take... In which case, I'm not certain the non-Bay readers would agree that it comes from an unbiased culture.
It is getting worse in a measurable way:
1) Since vibe coding GitHub has frequent outages and isn't able to load a large number of comments.
2) The slop translation of Bun resulted in immediate bugs (https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30719) that the hyped Mythos apparently did not find.
3) AI features and (likely, though not proven) AI code resulted in a 0-day in Google code:
https://projectzero.google/2026/01/pixel-0-click-part-1.html
The house of cards is beginning to collapse.
3 replies →
This account is another LLM-hype peddler, shilling specifically for Anthropic.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Help me understand how your above comment[0] squares with your previous one[1].
Above, you said:
> We still require a code review for any change
And:
> We don't really vibe though. At least I don't. I see it more as comment driven development. I need to understand the code and what I want to achieve where in the codebase
But in your previous comment, you said:
> since I'm no longer looking at code
And:
> Branches are now irrelevant
How can all of these things be true?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47713557
2 replies →
Say potato
[flagged]
Arguably, breaking out of comfy lurk just to pass a message can make the argument more compelling.
Focus on that message, not the messenger.
I've been here since 2008 and I'll say it. Vividfrier is a bot. The people behind the likes of vividfrier are vandals, shitting all over the commons just to get even more than the massive amount they have already been given.
HN was a tremendous resource built by its members and the moderators. In the last year or so a lot of that has been destroyed by people who have no sense of decency. They see deception as a virtue. They call it hustle or whatever. WTF?
4 replies →
Damn.
There are more points of view than that on HN.
A common one: "I have stopped writing code, the world is going to end"
Another: "I will code by hand, I don't care"
Another: "I use it as a tool, but the hype bothers me so much that I have to bitch and moan from morning to night"
This one is: "I have stopped writing code, it wasn't the end of the world."
My view is write the code that matters to you and that you want or need to be proficient with. If you need to defend, explain or discuss code, you are better off writing it yourself.
I would say his post has the tone of earnest discourse while yours devolves into ad hominem laden reflexive sensitivity.
Which is the pathological take?
The Bun rewrite’s aftermath will provide strong evidence either for or against GP.
That’s like saying “the aftermath of Hiroshima will provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power scientists”.
It’s irrelevant and unrelated.
If nuclear power scientists claimed they had a bomb that could level an entire city, Hiroshima would prove them correct.
vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.
3 replies →
If Hiroshima were the only big public nuclear plant around the world, then yes, the aftermath of Hiroshima would provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power.
1 reply →
That seems like an odd way to interpret what they wrote.
Imagine old school machinists saying to a CNC machinist “Ha! See, maybe you don’t jog the axes manually, but you still have to be involved in placing the stock material, and you have to do the CAD/CAM work - so did it really machine the part for you? No!”
AI is a tool like any other. It has its limitations. It has classes of problems that it is suited to handle, and others it isn’t. If it’s true that they haven’t written (as in “typed out by hand”) a single line of code, why can’t they say that without you making that statement into more than it is?
I haven’t written a single line of code in 6 months, and that’s simply fact. It is also true that I put in a lot of other work to make that feasible, but that work isn’t in the form of writing code.
“it’s mature and the next step of engineering”
Tautologically, it’s mature enough for what it is mature enough for, and it certainly is the next step in the same way that CNC was the next step for machining — if you’re not using it as a machinist, you’re going to produce less compared to those who are.
Same thing with garden hoses. Yes, you can go fetch water from a lake and splash it on your lawn, or, you know, you could just use a sprinkler connected to your garden hose. Doesn’t replace buckets. Buckets just have a narrower scope in a world where garden hoses exist.
I'm sorry but both of these are false equivalences. CNC isn't about making general machining operations faster or necessarily better. It's about making a single machine more versatile. Instead of needing an assembly line of machines you can get a bunch of different operations done on the same part without moving it to a different machine. You can also do compound operations that were otherwise highly specialized (like milling a turbocharger's radial compressor wheel). You can get the same job done with a series of manual operations though.
A garden hose vs a bucket is also the same situation. You can accomplish the same thing with either, but one might be more labor intensive.
AI is nothing like either of those. It would be like instead of a bucket you get a garden hose that points in a different direction every time you try to use it. Or instead of a 5 axis mill that rigorously executes the g-code it just randomly reinterprets tool paths each time it cuts a part. Both of these things would be worse than useless in their respective applications.
AI is different because it plays to the pliability of the software domain. Even fairly shitty, irreproducible results can be good enough for software development, if you don't look at it too closely. Make analogies to the physical world at your peril!
> AI is nothing like either of those. It would be like instead of a bucket you get a garden hose that points in a different direction every time you try to use it.
And also adds a multiplier to your water bill
1 reply →
If you let garden hose loose it will definitely spray all over the place given enough pressure.
The same with AI you still have to hold it and point in direction to be useful.
There is a reason why such discussions about CNC machines never happened. I wonder what it cculd be? Becausw their output is better than man-made atuff? Because they are reliable? Because their manufacturers generally don't lie?
Globally cnc machines are a little over $100billion.
It also had a logical stopping point in automation tech.
Ai is trying to do everything and wont stop
1 reply →
[dead]
I think discussion with open registration is doomed precisely for this reason, it is too open to being influenced by bad actors. Maybe the lobste.rs invitation model would be better ...
[flagged]
[flagged]
What's up with all the new accounts astroturfing AI? There are multiple in these threads. People from the 'foundation model' companies having to keep up the AI hype?
Usually they provide grandiose claims (like the top-level comment) without any evidence or just anecdotal evidence that is not verifiable.
Elsewhere I called it akin to Bannon's "flood the zone" marketing strategy.
HN is lousy with new accounts (created in the past year) that are overwhelmingly excited for the so-called AI revolution.
9 replies →
Can usually sniff them out because their comments are long and give lots of (vague) examples.
There's good money to be made in prolonging the hype.
Just what kind of evidence do you suppose they could have?
21 replies →
Please read what the HN guidelines say about insinuations of astroturfing, because it very much applies here.
5 replies →
not an astroturf and didn’t want to be associated with my main which has identifying info. Wanted to offer a perspective aside from the majority skeptic view on HN
Also I provided the list of actual hype ha
Real inventions don't need hype they speak for themselves.
Financial incentives
RSI?
Great example of what we used to call: "default definition changed". RSI 20 years ago = Repetitive Strain Injury RSI today: Recursive Self Improvement
2 replies →
Probably Recursive Self-Improvement
The vast majority of positive opinions about AI on Reddit and HackerNews are bots.
The one you respond to is an obvious bot, new account only posting comments saying how great AI is for example.
No need to look further.