@hugo@social.treehouse.systems
Post #2114769
2026-02-27 20:32 UTC
Replies (6)
-
@swelljoe@mas.to 2026-02-27 21:02
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems most vibe coders are not reviewing the code. If they're at all concerned about quality they're having other models review it. I suspect this puts upper bounds on what they can build, even ignoring quality. But, a theme that comes up a lot when people talk about it is "trust" and how much code one can write with LLMs is determined by how much trust you can put in them. I don't trust them all that much, but I can still offload a lot of boring stuff.
-
@lunareclipse@snug.moe 2026-02-27 21:20
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems b-but line of lines of code go up?
-
@sabik@rants.au 2026-02-27 22:52
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems Also each stage (writing code, review) that's done by agents means one less person who understands the code, which is often already not a big number to begin with, so ops will be interesting
-
@M0CUV@mastodon.radio 2026-03-01 09:36
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems @mos_8502@studio8502.ca Agreed - a perspective I heard recently as to why it takes longer to review LLM-generated code: with human-generated code, you’re starting from a position of trust - you know your co-worker and how they write, what they’ll pay attention to (and maybe miss)… with an LLM, you have to assume a complete lack of trust.
-
@dl2jml@mastodon.radio 2026-03-01 10:54
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems Once you think about it, poor code is not a bug, it is a feature. One can sell more fixes that way.
-
@satsuma@dice.camp 2026-03-01 12:23
@hugo@social.treehouse.systems it’s the same effect as trying to speed up a project by employing a load of junior programmers who have no experience of the real world. Sure, they’ll churn out a lot of code (and work overtime for free) but you’ll spend more time fixing their mistakes than doing it properly, and you won’t have the benefit of a better trained junior at the end of it.