A lot of more senior coders when they actively try vibe coding a greenfield project find that it does actually work. But only for the first ~10kloc. After that the AI, no matter how well you try to prompt it, will start to destroy existing features accidentally, will add unnecessary convoluted logic to the code, will leave benhind dead code, add random traces "for backwards compatibility", will avoid doing the correct thing as "it is too big of a refactor", doesn't understand that the dev database is not the prod database and avoids migrations. And so forth.
I've got 10+ years of coding experience, I am an AI advocate, but not vibe coding. AI is a great tool to help with the boring bits, using it to initialize files, help figure out various approaches, as a first pass code reviewer, helping with configuring, those things all work well.
But full-on replacing coders? It's not there yet. Will require an order of magnitude more improvement.
> only for the first ~10kloc. After that the AI, no matter how well you try to prompt it, will start to destroy existing features accidentally
I am using them in projects with >100kloc, this is not my experience.
at the moment, I am babysitting for any kloc, but I am sure they will get better and better.
Meanwhile, in the grandparent comment:
> Somehow 90% of these posts don't actually link to the amazing projects that their author is supposedly building with AI.
You are in the 90%.
It's fine at adding features on a non-vibecoded 100kloc codebase that you somewhat understand. It's when you're vibecoding from scratch that things tend to spin out at a certain point.
I am sure there are ways to get around this sort of wall, but I do think it's currently a thing.
I’m using it in a >200kloc codebase successfully, too. I think a key is to work in a properly modular codebase so it can focus on the correct changes and ignore unrelated stuff.
That said, I do catch it doing some of the stuff the OP mentioned— particularly leaving “backwards compatibility” stuff in place. But really, all of the stuff he mentions, I’ve experienced if I’ve given it an overly broad mandate.
Yes, this is my experience as well. I've found the key is having the AI create and maintain clear documentation from the beginning. It helps me understand what it's building, and it helps the model maintain context when it comes time to add or change something.
You also need a reasonably modular architecture which isn't incredibly interdependent, because that's hard to reason about, even for humans.
You also need lots and lots (and LOTS) of unit tests to prevent regressions.
Where are you getting the 10kloc threshold from? Nice round number...
Surely it depends on the design. If you have 10 10kloc modular modules with good abstractions, and then a 10k shell gluing them together, you could build much bigger things, no?
I wonder if you can up the 10kloc if you have a good static analysis of your tool (I vibecoded one in Python) and good tests. Sometimes good tests aren't possible since there are too many different cases but with other forms of codes you can cover all the cases with like 50 to 100 tests or so
Could you elaborate on the static analysis?
I agree with you in part, but I think the market is going to shift so that you won’t so many need “mega projects”. More and more, projects will be small and bespoke, built around what the team needs or answering a single question rather than forcing teams to work around an established, dominant solution.
How much are you willing to bet on this outcome and what metrics are you going to measure it with when we come to collect in 3 years?
This is the way: make every one of these people with their wild ass claims put their money where their mouths are.
Hold up. This is a funny comment but thinking should be free. It’s when they are trying to sell you something (looking at you “all the AI CEOs”) that unsubstantiated claims are problematic.
Then again the problem is that the public has learned nothing from the theranos and WeWorks and even more of a problem is that the vc funding works out for most of these hype trains even if they never develop a real business.
The incentives are fucked up. I’d not blame tech enthusiasts for being too enthusiastic
It's not the public, the general public would like to see tech ceo heads on spikes (first politician to jail Zuckerberg will win re-election for the rest of their short lives) but the general attitude in DC is to capitulate because they believe the lies + the election slush fund money doesn't hurt.
I'm fine with free thinking, but a lot of these are just so repetitive and exausting because there's absolutely no backing from any of those claims or a thread of logic.
Might as well talk about how AI will invent sentient lizards which will replace our computers with chocolate cake.
> Hold up. This is a funny comment but thinking should be free.
Thinking usually happens inside your head.
“Holy tautology Batman.”
What is your point?
If you’re trying to say that they should have kept their opinion to themselves, why don’t you do the same?
Edit: tone down the snark
> What is your point?
Holy Spiderman what is your point? That if someone says something dumb I can never challenge them nor ask them to substantiate/commit?
> tone down the snark
It's amazing to me that the neutral observation "thinking happens in your head" is snarky. Have you ever heard the phrase "tone police"?
You’re right, but on the other hand once you have a basic understanding security, architecture, etc you can prompt around these issues. You need a couple of years of experience but that’s far less then the 10-15 years of experience you needed in the past.
If you spend a couple of years with an LLM really watching and understanding what it’s doing and learning from mistakes, then you can get up the ladder very quickly.
I find that security, architecture, etc is exactly the kind of skill that takes 10-15 years to hone. Every boot camp, training provider, educational foundation, etc has an incentive to find a shortcut and we're yet to see one.
A "basic" understanding in critical domains is extremely dangerous and an LLM will often give you a false sense of security that things are going fine while overlooking potential massive security issues.
Somewhere on an HN thread I saw someone claiming that they "solved" security problems in their vibe-coded app by adding a "security expert" agent to their workflow.
All I could think was, "good luck" and I certainly hope their app never processes anything important...
Found a problem? Slap another agent on top to fix it. It’s hilarious to see how the pendulum’s swung away from “thinking from first principles as a buzzword”. Just engineer, dammit…
But if you are not saving "privileged" information who cares? I mean think of all the WordPress sites out there. Surely vibecoding is not SO much worse than some plugin monstrosity.... At the end of the day if you are not saving user info, or special sauce for your company, it's no issue. And I bet a huge portion of apps fall into this category...
> If you spend a couple of years with an LLM really watching and understanding what it’s doing and learning from mistakes, then you can get up the ladder very quickly.
I don't feel like most providers keep a model for more than 2 years. GPT-4o got deprecated in 1.5 years. Are we expecting coding models to stay stable for longer time horizons?
This is the funniest thing I've read all week.
Don't you think it has gotten an order of magnitude better in the last 1-2 years? If it only requires another an order of magnitude improvement to full-on replace coders, how long do you think that will take?
Who is liable for the runtime behavior of the system, when handling users’ sensitive information?
If the person who is liable for the system behavior cannot read/write code (as “all coders have been replaced”), does Anthropic et al become responsible for damages to end users for systems its tools/models build? I assume not.
How do you reconcile this? We have tools that help engineers design and build bridges, but I still wouldn’t want to drive on an “autonomously-generated bridge may contain errors. Use at own risk” because all human structural engineering experts have been replaced.
After asking this question many times in similar threads, I’ve received no substantial response except that “something” will probably resolve this, maybe AI will figure it out