this is why i use ai just for one file at the time, as extension of my own programming. not so fast, but keeps control

i found that to be effective is to use multiple AI tools at once. I'm using Gemini newest model i cant think of at the top of my head right now, and Claude newest model. i have each for its purpose with rustover IDE to speed things up. Rustover is particularly helpful because of how rust is worked with, the constant cargo cli commands and database interactions right in the IDE. i know visual code has this to a certain limit but IMO i prefer Rustover. Using multiple models is because i know what each one is good at and how my knowledge works with their output, makes my life way easier and drives frustration down, which is needed when you need creativity at the forefront. This is being said it def helps to know what you are doing if not 100% at least 60% of the things you are asking the models to do for you, I have caught mistakes and know when a model might make mistake which im fine with, sometimes i just want to see how something is done like the structure for a certain function of crate as im reading cargo.io doc constantly to learn what im doing.

There are plenty of ways to code and use code, which-ever works for you is good just improve on it and make it more effective. I have multiple screens on my computer, i don't like jumping back and fourth opening tabs and browsers so i have my set up the best way that works for me. As for the AI models, they are not going to be that helpful to you if you don't understand why its doing what its doing in a particular function or crate (in case of rust) or library. I imagine the the over the top coder that has years of experience and multiple knowledge in various languages and depth knowledge in libraries, using the same technique he can replace a whole Department by himself technically.

It already starts with BS. Yes there are apps you can build in 30 minutes and they are great, not buggy or crap as he says it. And there are apps you need 1 hour or even weeks. It depends on what you want to build. To start off by saying that every app build in 30 minutes is crap, simply shows that he did not want to think about it, is ignorant or he simply wanted to push himselve higher up by putting others down. At this point, every programmer who claims that vibecoding doesn't make you at least 10 times more productive is simply lying or worst, doesn't know how to vibe code.

It seems like the entire "product" here is just a ChatGPT system prompt: "combine this image of a person with this image of a dinosaur".

The only thing he needed to code was an NFT wrapper, which presumably is just forking an existing NFT wholesale.

The interesting, user-facing part of the project isn't code at all! It's just an HTML front end on someone else's image generator and a "pay me" button.

Very disappointing.

> With AI, it’s easier to get the first 90 percent out there. This means we can spend more time on the remaining 10 percent, which means more time for craftsmanship and figuring out how to make your users happy.

EXCEPT... you've just vibe coded the first 90 percent of the product, so completing the remaining 10 percent will take WAY longer than normal because the developers have to work with spaghetti mess.

And right there this guy has shown exactly how little people who are not software developers with experience understand about building software.

100 hours try 500 hours at least if you want a competitive product, unless you are a wizard at marketing where you out market the 80/20 guys.

I keep seeing things that were vibe coded and thinking, "That's really impressive for something that you only spent that much time on".

To have a polished software project, you must spend time somewhat menially iterating and refining (as each type of user).

To have a polished software project, you need to have started with tests and test coverage from the start for the UI, too.

Writing tests later is not as good.

I have taken a number of projects from a sloppy vibe coded prototype to 100% test coverage. Modern coding llm agents are good at writing just enough tests for 100% coverage.

But 100% test coverage doesn't mean that it's quality software, that it's fuzzed, or that it's formally verified.

Quality software requires extensive manual testing, iteration, and revision.

I haven't even reviewed this specific project; it's possible that the author developed a quality (CLI?) UI without e2e tests in so much time?

Was the process for this more like "vibe coding" or "pair programming with an LLM"?

I can't say I'm impressed by this at all. 100+ hours to build a shitty NFT app that takes one picture and a predefined prompt, then mints you a dinosaur NFT. This is the kind of thing I would've seen college students slam out over a weekend for a coding jam with no experience and a few cans of red bull with more quality and effort. Has our standards really gotten so low? I don't see any craftsmanship at play here.

> The "remaining 10 percent" is a difference between slop and something people enjoy.

I would say the remaining 10% are about how robust your solution is - anything associated with 'vibe' feels inherently unsecure. If you can objectively proof it is not, that's 10 % time well spend.

Instead of 10x devs you now have the super rare 100x devs. They are using AI how it should be used.