Our port of Messaging to Compose was clearly not vibe coded as both the parent comment and yours are wrongly portraying it. Experienced developers have been working on overhauling the app for months with a lot of back and forth code review to get the pull requests into shape. We don't have a policy against using AI for assistance as long as the resulting code meets our high standards.
We definitely use frontier AI models with cybersecurity access unlocked for code review. Those often find problems we didn't catch via multiple rounds of human review. The output is filled with hallucinations and incorrect details but an experienced developer can sift through it, identify the real issues it uncovered and get those fixed.
I appreciate all the hard work the Graphene team has done all these years with advancing alternative mobile OS and have been following them for years so I hope they don’t take this the wrong way -
The project would benefit from more polished, professional image/interactions with the community. I (personally) have a hard time trusting my data to a project that is constantly bickering (“no, we don’t vibecode, did you even look at the repo”) in public forums like this under the official letterhead account.
I’d love to see y’all discussing these types of technical details with individual, identifiable (even under fixed pseudonyms if you want) developers’ accounts, and leaving the official letterhead account to stick to posting marketing material.
You need to stop the flagging ring operation of any mild questioning or criticism Daniel – it's a very bad look for the project, and also against the acceptable behaviour on this site
Flagging is not for what you perceive to be incorrect information or things you disagree with or to shut down conversation. You always reply to a comment to clear it up – that's enough. And of course organised flagging is totally unacceptable.
There are enough instances now I will compile a list and email the moderators who can hopefully correct your behaviour
Our code quality standards are very high. Vibe coding is not capable of meeting those standards. The details of how things get written and improved to meet our standards is up to individual developers. We don't have a policy against developers using AI for assistance. They need to understand all of the code and it needs to pass our code review. Our code review is now usually a lot more thorough than before. In addition to human review, we regularly pass code through a couple frontier AI models and then review the results to figure out which claims it makes are valid. Even the frontier models hallucinate many non-existent problems and often get a lot of details wrong when they find real problems, but they do find a lot of real problems.
Our port of Messaging to Compose was clearly not vibe coded as both the parent comment and yours are wrongly portraying it. Experienced developers have been working on overhauling the app for months with a lot of back and forth code review to get the pull requests into shape. We don't have a policy against using AI for assistance as long as the resulting code meets our high standards.
We definitely use frontier AI models with cybersecurity access unlocked for code review. Those often find problems we didn't catch via multiple rounds of human review. The output is filled with hallucinations and incorrect details but an experienced developer can sift through it, identify the real issues it uncovered and get those fixed.
How did my comment portray your port as you are vibecoding it? I just said that AI is being used.
It seems obvious to me that you guys would use it responsibly.
I appreciate all the hard work the Graphene team has done all these years with advancing alternative mobile OS and have been following them for years so I hope they don’t take this the wrong way -
The project would benefit from more polished, professional image/interactions with the community. I (personally) have a hard time trusting my data to a project that is constantly bickering (“no, we don’t vibecode, did you even look at the repo”) in public forums like this under the official letterhead account.
I’d love to see y’all discussing these types of technical details with individual, identifiable (even under fixed pseudonyms if you want) developers’ accounts, and leaving the official letterhead account to stick to posting marketing material.
Just my 2 cents.
1 reply →
You need to stop the flagging ring operation of any mild questioning or criticism Daniel – it's a very bad look for the project, and also against the acceptable behaviour on this site
Flagging is not for what you perceive to be incorrect information or things you disagree with or to shut down conversation. You always reply to a comment to clear it up – that's enough. And of course organised flagging is totally unacceptable.
There are enough instances now I will compile a list and email the moderators who can hopefully correct your behaviour
I dunno. If they're using AI, it's well controlled. I don't see a lot of artifacts you usually get from full-on vibe-coding.
Our code quality standards are very high. Vibe coding is not capable of meeting those standards. The details of how things get written and improved to meet our standards is up to individual developers. We don't have a policy against developers using AI for assistance. They need to understand all of the code and it needs to pass our code review. Our code review is now usually a lot more thorough than before. In addition to human review, we regularly pass code through a couple frontier AI models and then review the results to figure out which claims it makes are valid. Even the frontier models hallucinate many non-existent problems and often get a lot of details wrong when they find real problems, but they do find a lot of real problems.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49592770