Top
Best
New

Posted by arjunbanker 1 day ago

Breaking the spell of vibe coding(www.fast.ai)
101 points | 63 commentspage 2
altcunn 3 hours ago|
The point about vibe coding eroding fundamentals resonates. I've noticed that when I lean too heavily on LLM-generated code, I stop thinking about edge cases and error handling — the model optimizes for the happy path and so do I. The real skill shift isn't coding vs not coding, it's learning to be a better reviewer and architect of code you didn't write yourself.
fnordpiglet 3 hours ago||
Fascinating - I find the opposite is true. I think of edge cases more and direct the exploration of them. I’ve found my 35 years experience tells me where the gaps will be and I’m usually right. I’ve been able to build much more complex software than before not because I didn’t know how but because as one person I couldn’t possibly do it. The process isn’t any easier just faster.

I’ve found also AI assisted stuff is remarkable for algorithmically complex things to implement.

However one thing I definitely identify with is the trouble sleeping. I am finally able to do a plethora of things I couldn’t do before due to the limits of one man typing. But I don’t build tools I don’t need, I have too little time and too many needs.

ncruces 1 hour ago||
> I’ve found also AI assisted stuff is remarkable for algorithmically complex things to implement.

AI is really good to rubber duck through a problem.

The LLM has heard of everything… but learned nothing. It also doesn't really care about your problem.

So, you can definitely learn from it. But the moment it creates something you don't understand, you've lost control.

You had one job.

thehamkercat 2 hours ago||
> when I lean too heavily on LLM-generated code, I stop thinking about edge cases and error handling

I have the exact same experience... if you don't use it, you'll lose it

samename 2 hours ago||
The addiction aspect of this is real. I was skeptical at first, but this past week I built three apps and experienced issues with stepping away or getting enough sleep. Eventually my discipline kicked in to make this a more healthy habit, but I was surprised by how compelling it is to turn ideas into working prototypes instantly. Ironically, the rate limits on my Claude and Codex subscriptions helped me to pace myself.
logicprog 2 hours ago|
Isn't struggling to get enough sleep or shower enough and so on because you're so involved with the process of, you know, programming, especially interactive, exploratory programming with an immediate feedback loop, kind of a known phenomenon for programmers since essentially the dawn of interactive computing?
samename 1 hour ago||
Using agents trigger different dopamine patterns, I'd compare it to a slot machine: did it execute it according to plan or did it make a fatal flaw? Also, multiple agents can run at once, which is a workflow for many developers. The work essentially doesn't come to a pausing point.
logicprog 1 hour ago||
> did it execute it according to plan or did it [have] a fatal flaw?

That's most code when you're still working on it, no?

> Also, multiple agents can run at once, which is a workflow for many developers. The work essentially doesn't come to a pausing point.

Yeah the agent swarm approach sounds unsurvivably stressful to me lol

nkmnz 2 hours ago||
> A study from METR found that when developers used AI tools, they estimated that they were working 20% faster, yet in reality they worked 19% slower. That is nearly a 40% difference between perceived and actual times!

It’s not. It’s either 33% slower than perceived or perception overestimates speed by 50%. I don’t know how to trust the author if stuff like this is wrong.

jph00 1 hour ago||
> I don’t know how to trust the author if stuff like this is wrong.

She's not wrong.

A good way to do this calculation is with the log-ratio, a centered measure of proportional difference. It's symmetric, and widely used in economics and statistics for exactly this reason. I.e:

ln⁡(1.2/0.81) = ln⁡(1.2)-ln⁡(0.81) ≈ 0.393

That's nearly 40%, as the post says.

piker 2 hours ago|||
I get caught up personally in this math as well. Is a charitable interpretation of the throwaway line that they were off by that many “percentage points”?
nkmnz 1 hour ago||
That would be correct, but also useless. It matters if 50pp are 50% vs. 100%, 75% vs. 125% or 100% vs. 150%.
regular_trash 2 hours ago|||
Can you elaborate? This seems like a simple mistake if they are incorrect, I'm not sure where 33% or 50% come from here.
nkmnz 2 hours ago|||
Their math is 120%-80%=40% while the correct math is (80-120)/120=-33% or (120-80)/80=+50%

It’s more obvious if you take more extreme numbers, say: they estimated to take 99% less time with AI, but it took 99% more time - the difference is not 198%, but 19900%. Suddenly you’re off by two orders of magnitude.

jph00 1 hour ago|||
It's not a mistake. It's correct, and is a excellent way to present this information.
softwaredoug 2 hours ago||
Isn't the study a year old by now? Things have evolved very quickly in the last few months.
nkmnz 1 hour ago||
Yes. No agents, no deep research, no tools, and just Sonnet-3.5 and 3.7 - I’d love to see the same study today with Opus-4.6 and Codex-5.3
lazystar 2 hours ago||
i used to lose hours each day to typos, linting issues, bracket-instead-of-curly-bracket, 'was it the first parameter or the second parameter', looking up accumulator/anonymous function callback syntax AGAIN...

idk what ya'll are doing with AI, and i dont really care. i can finally - fiiinally - stay focused on the problem im trying to solve for more than 5 minutes.

ozim 2 hours ago||
idk what you’re doing but proper IDE was doing that for me for past 15 years or more.

Like I don’t remember syntax or linting or typos being a problem since I was in high school doing Turbo Pascal or Visual Basic.

lazystar 1 hour ago||
emacs-nox for 8 years :-)
CBarkleyU 1 hour ago||
With all due respect, but if you actually wasted hours (multiple) each (!) day on those issues, then yeah, I can fully believe that AI assisted coding 10 or even 100x'd you.
mathgladiator 3 hours ago||
Ive come to the realization after maxing the x20 plan that I have to set clear priorities.

Fortunately, I've retired so I'm going focus on flooding the zone with my crazy ideas made manifest in books.

nkmnz 2 hours ago||
tl;dr - author cites a study from early 2025 which measured developer speed of “experienced open source developers” to be ~20% slower when supported by AI, while they’ve estimated to be ~20% faster.

Note: the study used sonnet-3.5 and sonnet-3.7; there weren’t any agents, deep research or similar tools available. I’d like to see this study done again with:

1. juniors ans mid-level engineers

2. opus-4.6 high and codex-5.2 xhigh

3. Tasks that require upfront research

4. Tasks that require stakeholder communication, which can be facilitated by AI

cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago|
"they don’t produce useful layers of abstraction nor meaningful modularization. They don’t value conciseness or improving organization in a large code base. We have automated coding, but not software engineering"

Which frankly describes pretty much all real world commercial software projects I've been on, too.

Software engineering hasn't happened yet. Agents produce big balls of mud because we do, too.

Barrin92 2 hours ago|
which is why the most famous book in the world of software development pointed out that the long term success of a software project is not defined by man hours or lines of code written but by documentation, clear interfaces and the capacity to manage the complexity of a project.

Maybe they need to start handing out copies of the mythical man month again because people seem to be oblivious to insights we already had a few decades ago