> We don't call architects 'vibe architects' even though (…)
> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for (…)
> When was the last time (…)
None of those are the same thing. At all. They are still all deterministic approaches. The architect’s library of things doesn’t change every time they use it or present different things depending on how they hold it. It’s useful because it’s predictable. Same for all your other examples.
If we want to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of LLM-generated code, proponents need to stop being dishonest in their comparisons. They also need to stop plugging their ears and not ignore the other issues around the technology. It is possible to have something which is useful but whose advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
I think the word predictable is doing a bit of heavy lifting there.
Lets say you shovel some dirt, you’ve got a lot of control over where you get it from and where you put it..
Now get in your big digger’s cabin and try to have the same precision. At the level of a shovel-user, you are unpredictable even if you’re skilled. Some of your work might be out a decent fraction of the width of a shovel. That’d never happen if you did it the precise way!
But you have a ton more leverage. And that’s the game-changer.
That’s another dishonest comparison. Predictability is not the same as precision. You don’t need to be millimetric when shovelling dirt at a construction site. But you do need to do it when conducting brain surgery. Context matters.
Sure. If you’re racing your runway to go from 0 to 100 users you’d reach for a different set of tools than if you’re contributing to postgres.
In other words I agree completely with you but these new tools open up new possibilities. We have historically not had super-shovels so we’ve had to shovel all the things no matter how giant or important they are.
> these new tools open up new possibilities.
I’m not disputing that. What I’m criticising is the argument from my original parent post of comparing it to things which are fundamentally different, but making it look equivalent as a justification against criticism.