these tools have been trained on decades of people "obsessing over every last detail". what GP is arguing is that we're detaching from that: you prompt, you get something that works, it doesn't matter how it got there. we're now entering the world where the majority of code will be vibed. So whatever our foredevelopers came up with, that will be the the final chapter of craftsman-produced, understood, code. whatever the previous generation actually learned about software engineering, that's at an end too, because why bother learning when i can prompt.

there's no stopping this transition, obviously. the next generation of tools will be trained on the current generation of tools' generated code. we're passed the "termination shock" of sofwtare understanding.

It's whatever the visual language equivalent of "low signal" is.

They have enough of a following now that they can dedicate 55 minutes to something and not worry about the algorithm, which usually dictates much shorter form factors

aside from that, this number is meaningless without context: how much do other fields of research get?

Yes, everyone everywhere should endeavor to... checks notes... work the maximum number of hours in a year.

Any time I try to get a novel insight, it flails wildly, and nothing of value comes out. And yes, I am prompting incrementally and building up slowly.

Thanks for unlocking this memory for me!

Ya sure, you can say that every company must do that, but apple are exceptional at it. Once you start noticing the unlabeled performance charts, the missing baselines, the comparing with ages old models, the disingenuous "86x" metrics, the whole show becomes cringe worthy.

https://www.keychron.com/collections/split-keyboards

I'm not sure if they're in stock, but it's a lovely keyboard with dead simple programmability.

Junior dev vibe codes some slop to solve a problem that was barely a problem. The "solution" to that not-a-problem was 2500 lines of slop. Unused variables, spaghetti logic, unit tests that were clearly write-once, read-never.

The slop at that point is the meta-problem, the real problem becomes me trying to convince (through multiple rounds of code review) that this was not maintainable code, and not a tenable development model.

All those rounds of review take TIME and mental effort. At some point, when the code review takes more effort than the code owner contributed, the value proposition is shot.

Generate the code however you want (llm, bit twiddling, whatever), but the effort and care must be there. If you can't use an llm skillfully and vouch for the output, it's gonna be a no from me dawg