logoalt Hacker News

alkonaut • today at 3:12 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

What I'm saying is the quiet part out loud: A majority of coders and a majority of really IS bad. And now a lot of that code is actually better (big win).

Basically: the code was so bad before, that un-reviewed LLM-code is now better than the average contribution. That means, that at least short term, the vibe coding can increase quality.

The problem is that it also increases code volume (bad) and rapidly decreases understanding (even worse).


Replies

jluysvi • today at 3:43 PM

Yeah I've been experimenting with a bunch of different domains: 2D CAD, PCB design, coding obviously and recently I had Claude finish a project on all three fronts: finish the firmware(in rust because why not), change up a few components and finalise the pcb design, source all the non pcb components and do all the documentation for the installer. To be fair, it had a solid base to build from, but still, almost everything was "good enough", now I'm at work looking at PCB design that take the electrical engineers 8 weeks when I know I could have had two prototypes shipped and tested already. The fact is 90% of people are not doing the really hard stuff and Claude can just brute force pretty much any low to mid tier white collar task given enough information.

palmotea • today at 6:26 PM

> What I'm saying is the quiet part out loud: A majority of coders and a majority of really IS bad....

How would you know "the majority" from your anecdotes? Maybe you just spent your career working with incompetent people who didn't care.

And actually there's a point I forgot to address earlier, in my first comment:

>>>>> The thing is: people quickly discover that even mediocre LLM-code with a mediocre LLM-review, is still better quality than what they hand wrote and hand-reviewed.

People whose hand-written code is worse than "mediocre LLM-code with a mediocre LLM-review" are not going to discover the LLM-code is better, because they typically don't care. That's usually the whole problem with that kind of person.

> ...And now a lot of that code is actually better (big win).

> Basically: the code was so bad before, that un-reviewed LLM-code is now better than the average contribution. That means, that at least short term, the vibe coding can increase quality.

> The problem is that it also increases code volume (bad) and rapidly decreases understanding (even worse).

You're contradicting yourself here. Even accepting your statements uncritically, it doesn't sound like a "big win." It sounds like a marginal improvement that's ultimately self-defeating.

➕ show 1 reply
sharpshadow • today at 4:34 PM

Code volume and understanding can be tackled with a proper system prompt. Even afterwards, apart from costing resources, a cross-model optimization can increase quality of the output. Unix philosophy in the system prompt could be useful if the code wants to be worked on later again.

➕ show 1 reply