Post #1641135
2026-04-24 15:01 UTC
Replies (11)
-
@pointlessone@status.pointless.one 2026-04-24 21:14
@camertron@ruby.social I agree with “you didn’t write it” but it’s not exactly as buying a car. You usually have very little input in what the car is, you choose from pre-made configurations. With vibecoding you, arguably, create a spec for what’s to be made. In a bigger project you have to direct the agent at least a bit to get any kind of even remotely working output. Complete autonomy is not a thing yet. So some credit goes to the person. It’s sort of like CEO of a large company says “I built so and so”. No, they didn’t but also they’re still kinda responsible for it.
-
@kerrick@ruby.social 2026-04-24 15:09
@camertron It is important to realize both "I paid Anthropic to write x for me" and "I made x with Claude" exist, and there is a significant difference. The former creates poor quality code and leaves you with no Theory of the Program... but it's easy. The latter is somewhere between guiding an intern and pair programming in creativity, difficulty, and time spent, but it pays off. It's the difference between https://github.com/setdef/RatatuiRuby/blob/stable/tasks/doc.rake and https://github.com/setdef/RatatuiRuby/blob/stable/tasks/bump.rake
-
@feld@friedcheese.us 2026-04-24 21:56
@camertron you didn't write this ActivityPub Create activity and its associated Object, Mastodon wrote it for you.
-
@sun@shitposter.world 2026-04-24 22:27
@camertron sure, I always say "the LLM wrote this for me." I Agree it's more honest.
-
@lolitechengineer@loli.church 2026-04-24 22:35
@camertron@ruby.social Look, if you want to compile some code with a compiler, fine. You shouldn't, but fine. However you absolutely do not get to say you programmed it. You didn't. The computer programmed it for you. If I buy a car from Honda, I don't get to say I made the car. It's the same principle. We have to stop normalizing language like "I programmed x with C." No you didn't. Better: "I used GCC to program it for me." The former is intellectual dishonesty.
-
@mark@mastodon.fixermark.com 2026-04-25 00:41
@camertron True. Of course, the computer doing things for me is sort of the point. That machine code in the executable binary I got running my source code through gcc? I also didn't write that.
-
@BoydStephenSmithJr@hachyderm.io 2026-04-25 01:52
@camertron Counterpoint: "Prompt Engineering" /s
-
@abstractcode@eigenmagic.net 2026-04-25 02:41
@camertron In my (extraordinarily reluctantly obtained) experience I could claim I did the cleanup to make the code something I can actually commit. This is not an achievement. Much like "I applied the brake so I didn't drive the car I didn't make into pedestrians" is not an achievement.
-
@arclight@oldbytes.space 2026-04-25 13:05
@camertron A number of commenters do not seem to understand the difference between deterministic transformation of an input text and probabilistic text generation given a PRNG seed. I'm not sure if it's genuine or willful ignorance but it's still troubling how many dedicated computer touchers don't understand what a compiler or assembler does and how it does it. Ir helps to remember that the vast majority of the training set the code assistants were built from was not provided with explicit consent from the original authors. Unlike using a library or modifying open source code, there's no trace left of the original authors, no attribution, no credit given for design and implementation. It's perfectly fine to say one has made something using some set of preexisting parts or using the work of others provided you clearly indicate what is your original contribution and what is the work of others. If you're a degreed engineer with the potential of licensure, part of the professional engineering code of ethics is to give credit where it is due and not take credit for work you did not personally perform. Attribution laundering is an ethical issue in engineering; it seems less important to general software developers who may not be able to point to a clear set of ethical standards they commit to uphold. No amount of pedantry about tool use can weasel around using other people's work without consent and taking credit for it as if it's your own.
-
@catdraoichta@meow.social 2026-04-25 13:40
@camertron Personally, I think that generating code from an LLM, and then giving that code ( or the resulting compiled binary ) to literally anyone else, for any reason, should be illegal.
-
@n_dimension@infosec.exchange 2026-05-04 21:40
@camertron@ruby.social Thanks for the permission. Appreciate it.