I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the vibe coding experience non-coders want, but if it's one-shotting a buildable codebase off of an unspecific prompt, the major breakthrough would have to be brain-computer interfaces so the agent can literally read the user's mind.
If that same person approached a software development company with the same prompt without following up with any other details, they won't get good code back, either. You're not saying it, but this idea that in the future you can tell a computer something like "create photoshop" and get what your expecting is an unrealistic dream that would need mind-reading or a major breakthrough and paradigm shift in understanding and interpreting language.
> the major breakthrough would have to be brain-computer interfaces so the agent can literally read the user's mind.
And even that would not be enough.
In reality, it would have to put the user to sleep and go through various dream scenarios to have the user's brain really build an internal model that is not there in the first place. No brain interface can help find what is not there.
We usually need interactions with reality to build the internal model of what we actually want step by step, especially for things we have not done before.
Even for info that is there, that's also a limit to fantasy or sci-fi brain scanning. The knowledge is not stored like in a RAM chip, even when it is there. You would have to simulate the brain to actually go through the relevant experiences to extract the information. Predicting the actual dynamic behavior of the brain would require some super-super sub-molecular level scan and then correctly simulating that, since what the neurons will actually do depends on much more than the basic wiring. Aaaaand you may get a different result depending on time of day, how well they slept, mood and when and what the person ate and what news they recently read, etc. :)
That is also not enough. An agent could build an application that functions, but you also need to have a well-designed underlying architecture if you want the application to be extensible and maintainable - something the original dreamer may not even be capable of - so perhaps a shared extended dream share with a Sr. architect is also needed. Oh wait .. I guess we're back to square 1 again? lol
Agree. I've never had the attention span to learn code, but I utilize LLM's heavily and have recently started managing my first large coding project with CC to what seems like good results.
As LLM get better, more and more people will be able to create projects with only rudimentary language understanding. I don't think LLMS can ever be as good as some of the outrageous claims; it's a lot like that 3rd grade project kids do on writing instruction on making a PB&J. LLM's cannot read minds and will only follow the prompt given to them. What I'm trying to say is that eventually there will be a time where being able to effectively manage coding agents efficiently will be more externally valuable than knowing how to write code.
This isn't to say that engineering experience is not valuable. Having a deep understanding of how to design and build secure and efficient software is a huge moat between experienced engineers and vibecoders like me, and not learning how to best use the tools that are quickly changing how the world operates will leave them behind.
You're not making sense. People on the right actively spread stereotypes, racist cliches, and other antisocial, pro-violent opinions that they call the truth and won't budge on their opinion, but as soon as a leftist calls someone with actual authoritarian viewpoints a nazi they are the problem for spreading stereotypes and not debating ideas? lmfao
> People say all sorts of stuff, but if your consistently being told by a large cohort of individuals your shit stinks for a decade, it probably stinks.
I agree that the authoritarian left has very much tried to recreate the "no smoke without fire" pre-liberal "justice" system, but all it takes is organisational capture of media coupled with a lot of people without any critical thinking skills.
Your mental gymnastics is wild, dude. So many excuses and still won't address my original point that the right actively preaches and spreads stereotypes, racism, and violent rhetoric.
Youth will be on whichever app the creators are on. As long as they can hold the status quo keeping creators on the app the people that will leave will be few.
I find public transit will often use electric doors, but they will also have ways to open the door or window manually in the case of an emergency which seems like the best middleground.
That said, when has a door handle ever been a major point of failure in a personal automobile? Electric door handles on cars for less wear is a bad argument, imo. My internal skeptic says Tesla saves as much money as they can on door latches, so they need it to be electronic to remain gentle enough it won't break.
Often the emergency door mechanisms are very well labeled on public transit —- riding a train I know right away how to stop the train and get the hell out.
I don't think there are good or bad wine growing regions as much as there are places where people have figured out how to make good wines. The Finger Lakes had a bad reputation once but people figured out Rieslings and some more affordable whites that reputation changed. More recently it was famous for soda-pop sweet wines like Red Cat but I've had some dry reds lately that weren't as bad as what I had 20 years ago.
While "mass shooting" does not have a solid agreed upon definition, there is a commonly accepted definition when we talk about one in the US. It's a shooting incident in which there are 4 or more casualties.
I think of ‘mass’ in the context of defining groups of things as just ‘a lot under the circumstances’. A mass gathering for an NFL game is 100,000 people; a mass crowd for a high-school JV basketball game is probably 100; a mass crowd for a 1 year old’s birthday is maybe 50. It’s relative to what is expected under normal circumstances. 4 people being shot or injured is a lot because nobody should be shot or injured.
this is again loaded language. the intent is to make things seem more severe than they were. the bombing of Nagasaki was a mass killing, shooting 4 people is a shooting with 4 victims, not a mass shooting.
Why are you so intent on the definition of "mass?" whether "mass" means 4 or 400, one "mass shooting" is one too many. Arguing about how many people are allowed to die in an incident before we do something about it does nothing to prevent this from happening.
it’s your tone and an assumption that i don’t understand the definition of context. it is hateful disagreements like this that radicalize people. your response was hateful, reword it without defining words for people.
It's not hateful at all. I wish you no ill will whatsoever.
I'm just calling out what seems pretty clearly to be your lack of nuance/flexibility of the language. Which is something you might expect from a recent English language learner or a child.
Are you one of those? If not, you're pretty clearly being deliberately obtuse.
I won't hazard a guess as to why you might do such a thing, as that would likely be uncharitable.
I'll sum up, in case you're still confused: Calling you out for your tone deafness and/or deliberate obtuseness isn't hateful at all.
In fact, it's meant to inform you of the above as a service, so that you might provide higher quality discourse here.
As for being "hateful," I have no quarrel with you. I wish no harm on you, nor have you earned my ire. Rather, I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other.
If a mild remonstration is considered to be "hateful" by you, I can hardly imagine your reaction to actual verbal abuse. I expect it wouldn't be pretty.
it’s simple, don’t use verbiage meant to manipulate emotions. so just call it a shooting. the qualifier mass serves no purpose and changes nothing about how the case is prosecuted. the suspect is still charged with individual murder or manslaughter charges, not one single charge of multiple deaths.
I'll do one further. I don't care if the verbiage is "manipulative" or has a spin to it so long as the term and definition are not specifically crafted to overload plain english terms to facilitate being misleading with plausible deniability.
That's how low of a bar I'll set and they still can't meet it.
The fact that upping the bar to 4 per incident and still gets us 600 is frankly shameful.
> it would be politically inconvenient to separate them
Why? No sane person in the United States "likes" gun violence. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "600 incidents of a firearm killing 4 or more people is too many incidents." The question that divides people is how we ought to control it.
You're gonna have to explain your point better. No one said mental illness doesn't exist. Your comment has nothing to do with the definition of mass shootings. No one defines mass shooting as "a mentally ill person who shoots people." It's pretty much given that a mass shooter is mentally ill. The point of contention is what does "mass" mean.
I think most people here are aware of the 1 in 10,000 reference, but it can come off as belittling because it implies it is knowledge most people know.
If that same person approached a software development company with the same prompt without following up with any other details, they won't get good code back, either. You're not saying it, but this idea that in the future you can tell a computer something like "create photoshop" and get what your expecting is an unrealistic dream that would need mind-reading or a major breakthrough and paradigm shift in understanding and interpreting language.
reply