Readit NewsYou always have to review overall diff though and go back to agent with broader corrections to do.
This thread is about vibe coding _without_ looking at the code.
It's the equivalent of calling something an AI generated images just because the fingers are weird, and requires a judgment more concrete than "I have eyes."
> you ever seen a human write dependencies like this for a small toy tui?
Yes? That's just TOML syntax. I'm not sure which dependency in that list is excessive, especially for something that has to handle HTTP requests. If you mean adding a comment header for each section, then that's a better argument, but see argument above.
But read the same link from above: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52.... LLMs leave temporal comments like "// Now do X", or "// Do X using the new Y", as responses to prompts like "Can you do X with Y instead?".
or below: "// Auto-refresh every 5 seconds (only in Normal mode)". I would guess this comment was during a response to a prompt like: "can you only auto-refresh in Normal mode?"
Sometimes there are tautological comments and sometimes not: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52...
``` // Get log file path
let log_path = get_log_path(); ```
This is another signal to me that there is less human influence over the project.
No, none of these are a smoking gun. Also none of this means it was completely vibe coded. To me personally, the worrying part is that these patterns signal that perhaps human eyes were never on that section of the code, or at least the code was not considered carefully. For a toy app, who cares? For something that ingests your AWS creds, it's more of a red flag.
Edit: changed the language a bit to sound less sardonic. My comment is more about LLM signals than a judgment on LLM usage.
What a cruel time for experimenting on animals the 1960s were...
1. Exploration: LLM first, docs second—cuts discovery time by ~3×.
2. Boilerplate: AI generates, I refactor on the spot; never merged blindly.
3. CR: bot leaves a first-pass checklist, humans focus on architecture.
4. Legacy spelunking: 200k-context summary + mermaid call-graph.
5. Rule of three: AI writes glue, I write core, tests cover both.
Result: 30-40% more features shipped per quarter without quality drop.
Thus if you lower taxes, economics growth increases (overall tax receipts go up, not down).
What you are describing is if we are on the right side of the curve. But is there any evidence that this is true?
When I read Sowell, someone who I imagine would be a champion for this cause, he cites the 1920s as his evidence that trickle-down works which doesn’t inspire confidence. If there is no modern evidence, why are we even entertaining this theory today?
Deleted Comment
IMO, a less presumptuous criticism would be phrased like "if you did X then benefits Y would happen", or "if you haven't, consider X", or even (the least presumptuous - make it a conversation!) "have you considered X?", rather than "you should do X".
Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
Air travel works for people if the benefits outweigh the costs. The only thing that changes behavior is to change the costs.
And even if costs were 10x there are still plenty of people who will fly tons, because it would still be economically productive. There are always going to be people who fly 10x more than others, because certain jobs and roles simply require it.
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.