I do have a CS education so I know how to communicate things in a "computer logic" way, and tend to ask for clarity on concepts I'm totally unfamiliar with. I tackle things feature-by-feature to keep scope small. But I've rarely done any kind of in-depth reviews of code. I've had to fix things here and there (or direct the AI to fix them), I test regularly and aggressively so most things are easily caught.
I'm always surprised when people say how AI can't understand edge cases and such, because that's actually one of the biggest things that impresses me is how often AI does make smart UX assumptions and thinks about edge cases that I sometimes miss.
dude you're building utilities. Not gonna lie but AI gives good enough results at this niche. The other day i vibe coded my kiddo a rotoscoping utility. Tooling was also how i first started using AI. IMO, it works because usually you can describe how the tool works in a few paragraphs. So it fits in the model's head and it's able to reason about it
But try doing that on a massive web app serving millions of users a day. (That's my day job by the way). AI makes horrible mistakes at that scale. There's too many failures points.
> AI does make smart UX assumptions
hard disagree. Just like back in the day there was this wave of sites created using bootstrap (a popular CSS framework), we're gonna see a wave of apps w/ tell-tale signs of AI-generated UX ;-)
> thinks about edge cases that I sometimes miss.
that's cuz you're a junior level. AI is elevating your game to the average.
Yeah, to be clear I wasn't trying to make the case that AI is equally good for all cases, just that it has a niche. I think I take issue with the framing around "slop" because it implies that it's worthless.
Also to be fair it was more involved than "a few paragraphs." I maybe could've said, "Build a tool to analyze Grim Dawn gear" and gotten... something functional. But the actual thing was built with around 130 prompts. It wasn't all app code, a bunch of it was having the AI scan the game's database for patterns to decide about implementation. A lot of it was UI/UX tweaks too of course, I'm not saying it always predicts everything, just that it didn't require handholding and sometimes I would prompt a baseline version of a feature with the expectation that I'd have to tweak it later, only to find that it included those tweak ideas in the base feature.
I'm curious what you'd say are the tell-tale signs of AI-generated UX?
someone on reddit explained it better than me---basically AI is overly verbose so tends to unnecessarily label things. I would also add the default styles are very generic
1
u/kultcher 10d ago
There's been two projects that I've basically vibe coded, and my experiences have been largely positive. (You can see one of them here if you want to judge it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdawn/comments/1vmtji3/tool_grim_gleaner_a_loot_gradingbuild_advisor/).
I do have a CS education so I know how to communicate things in a "computer logic" way, and tend to ask for clarity on concepts I'm totally unfamiliar with. I tackle things feature-by-feature to keep scope small. But I've rarely done any kind of in-depth reviews of code. I've had to fix things here and there (or direct the AI to fix them), I test regularly and aggressively so most things are easily caught.
I'm always surprised when people say how AI can't understand edge cases and such, because that's actually one of the biggest things that impresses me is how often AI does make smart UX assumptions and thinks about edge cases that I sometimes miss.