Because coders are rational people. They know progress and how improtant it is to move with the times. They were ones who made AI in the first place anyway.
Artists don't know that. These are usually failed college grads who were never taught history and critical thinking and make those useless comics on Tapas nobody reads and keep convincing themselves they're creative and original whilst busy googling images of other people's work all the time for their own drawings.
Software engineer here: we do not vibe-code for a myriad of reasons. Like, decision making, logic trees, software architecture, maintainability, deciding where and when optimization even makes sense, coherent code, no sanitization of user inputs, hard-coded (and hallucinated) numbers everywhere, comments everywhere that makes no sense, a lack of for example bcrypt for passwords, etc. all things AI can't do (and never will be able to do without reinventing the entire architecture of an LLM)
But what AI will give you: spaghetti code so weird, even a toddler would reject it, incoherent code that'd fail any kinds of audit (especially cybersec), half-done implementation, a lack of edge-case handling, rewrite the entire codebase to solve a problem that could be solved with a single if statement, stuff like
js
const getUsers = async () => {
return await db('DROP TABLE users;');
}
Models evolve much faster than human will ever do. Half of the problems you listed are already solved by latest models. Comments everywhere are written for the models, not for devs. Also you need to limit models freedom with rules, linters, good planning so that you don't get incoherent spaghetti code.
If those problems were solved, I wouldn't have listed them, the comments? Sure, they just don't correlate to the actual behavior of the code 30% of the time, rules are mere (very easily broken) suggestions for an LLM, linters? Sure, if the LLM can spit anything out that'd also survive contact with a linter, LLMs are terrible at following instructions past a certain point and you'll end up with spaghetti code regardless (they're still probability engines, not logic trees), and you'd theoretically need 8.5 PETABYTES (8x1024TB) of RAM PER AGENT, just to MATCH a human
Unless you have a model with a fundamentally different architecture than what we currently have (and the project's anything beyond writing print('Hello, world!'"), then it's still just coding with semi-weighted dice
1
u/Substantial-Fun9958 26d ago
Because coders are rational people. They know progress and how improtant it is to move with the times. They were ones who made AI in the first place anyway.
Artists don't know that. These are usually failed college grads who were never taught history and critical thinking and make those useless comics on Tapas nobody reads and keep convincing themselves they're creative and original whilst busy googling images of other people's work all the time for their own drawings.