Relevant to some extent it dictate our approach. When human does lying or cheating, certain tool can be deployed (social shame, ostracise) that cannot be effective towards LLM.
Trying to apply social shame to an LLM would be and interesting experiment! From what I've seen, it is plausible that messages that it was doing something "wrong" would cause it to at least "pretend" to behave differently. So it seems plausable to me that if there was some what to communicate "disapproal" to an LLM would be able to police its behavior. How to do the communicating is the hard part!
Of course I'm talking strictly about behavior. Whether that would actually constitute the LLM feeling shame is a philosophical question.
> I've put some serious work into vibe-coding them. Months of work, infinite polish, infinite revisions, without writing a single line of code.
Not being pedantic, but this is not "vibe-coding", as other commenter and blog post means it at least. Parent emphasize lack of work, polish, revisions:
> They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface.
> This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse.
No, the TFA policy is specifically against LLM usage, not low quality code.
What you quoted is just how people paint LLM-heavy users just like how people used to paint JavaScript users as incompetent.
That there are people using LLMs to write 100% of their robust, derisked code disarms their argument or commits them to a sillier one like TFA's "we ban LLMs because you might get it to build a CI pipeline before you have users".
