Where do you draw the line though? Is it only vibe-coding if you don't touch a single line of code? If I ask Cursor agent to implement a basic refactor vs doing it by hand, does my level of "vibe" increase?
Why do we need a term anyway? Neologisms are nice for writing articles but I feel like we get lost in the weeds unnecessarily trying to categorize things. Its like trying to come up with genre names for electronic music. The more terms we create, the less useful they become.
I always thought of it as a temporary term anyway while we reconcile this technology with the status quo. In a few years I'll bet it will go back to be just "programming" or "development".
For the same reason I think it’s useful to distinguish between purely AI-generated imagery vs. using AI tooling in some specific and restricted way. e.g. if someone uses an AI de-noising program on a RAW photograph, the implications of that are entirely different from generating the entire image.
Until recently, it was not possible to generate sophisticated programs from scratch across a wide variety of problems domains without being involved in writing the code. This type of “development” is entirely unlike a more limited “AI-assisted” workflow and the implications of each are quite different.
As a viewer of artwork, how the art was produced entirely changes how I value it.
As a user of software - especially in certain categories - how the software is produced also changes how I value it, whether or not I trust it with my data, would be willing to install it in my computers, etc.
To your point, there’s a spectrum of AI involvement. But I think it’s necessary and useful to have language that helps identify software that sits on the extremes of that spectrum. Classifying things across the range is more difficult.
Comments
Where do you draw the line though? Is it only vibe-coding if you don't touch a single line of code? If I ask Cursor agent to implement a basic refactor vs doing it by hand, does my level of "vibe" increase?
Why do we need a term anyway? Neologisms are nice for writing articles but I feel like we get lost in the weeds unnecessarily trying to categorize things. Its like trying to come up with genre names for electronic music. The more terms we create, the less useful they become.
I always thought of it as a temporary term anyway while we reconcile this technology with the status quo. In a few years I'll bet it will go back to be just "programming" or "development".
For the same reason I think it’s useful to distinguish between purely AI-generated imagery vs. using AI tooling in some specific and restricted way. e.g. if someone uses an AI de-noising program on a RAW photograph, the implications of that are entirely different from generating the entire image.
Until recently, it was not possible to generate sophisticated programs from scratch across a wide variety of problems domains without being involved in writing the code. This type of “development” is entirely unlike a more limited “AI-assisted” workflow and the implications of each are quite different.
As a viewer of artwork, how the art was produced entirely changes how I value it.
As a user of software - especially in certain categories - how the software is produced also changes how I value it, whether or not I trust it with my data, would be willing to install it in my computers, etc.
To your point, there’s a spectrum of AI involvement. But I think it’s necessary and useful to have language that helps identify software that sits on the extremes of that spectrum. Classifying things across the range is more difficult.
If don’t touch a single line of code, you aren’t coding.
Or where your customers/bosses vibe coding when they told you their requirements?