It's more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you're doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.

And if you want an exact parallel, I've said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.

The thing about this perspective is that I think its actually overly positive about LLMs, as it frames them as just the latest in a long line of automations.

Not all automations are created equal. For example, compare using a typewriter to using a text editor. Besides a few details about the ink ribbon and movement mechanisms you really haven't lost much in the transition. This is despite the fact that the text editor can be highly automated with scripts and hot keys, allowing you to manipulate even thousands of pages of text at once in certain ways. Using a text editor certainly won't make you forget how to write like using ChatGPT will.

I think the difference lies in the relationship between the person and the machine. To paraphrase Cathode Ray Dude, people who are good at using computers deduce the internal state of the machine, mirror (a subset of) that state as a mental model, and use that to plan out their actions to get the desired result. People that aren't good at using computers generally don't do this, and might not even know how you would start trying to.

For years 'user friendly' software design has catered to that second group, as they are both the largest contingent of users and the ones that needed the most help. To do this software vendors have generally done two things: try to move the necessary mental processes from the user's brain into the computer and hide the computer's internal state (so that its not implied that the user has to understand it, so that a user that doesn't know what they're doing won't do something they'll regret, etc). Unfortunately this drives that first group of people up the wall. Not only does hiding the internal state of the computer make it harder to deduce, every "smart" feature they add to try to move this mental process into the computer itself only makes the internal state more complex and harder to model.

Many people assume that if this is the way you think about software you are just an elistist gatekeeper, and you only want your group to be able to use computers. Or you might even be accused of ableism. But the real reason is what I described above, even if its not usually articulated in that way.

Now, I am of the opinion that the 'mirroring the internal state' method of thinking is the superior way to interact with machines, and the approach to user friendliness I described has actually done a lot of harm to our relationship with computers at a societal level. (This is an opinion I suspect many people here would agree with.) And yet that does not mean that I think computers should be difficult to use. Quite the opposite, I think that modern computers are too complicated, and that in an ideal world their internal states and abstractions would be much simpler and more elegant, but no less powerful. (Elaborating on that would make this comment even longer though.) Nor do I think that computers shouldn't be accessible to people with different levels of ability. But just as a random person in a store shouldn't grab a wheelchair user's chair handles and start pushing them around, neither should Windows (for example) start changing your settings on updates without asking.

Anyway, all of this is to say that I think LLMs are basically the ultimate in that approach to 'user friendliness'. They try to move more of your thought process into the machine than ever before, their internal state is more complex than ever before, and it is also more opaque than ever before. They also reflect certain values endemic to the corporate system that produced them: that the appearance of activity is more important than the correctness or efficacy of that activity. (That is, again, a whole other comment though.) The result is that they are extremely mind numbing, in the literal sense of the phrase.

I agree with you, though proponents will tell you that's by design. Supposedly, it's like with high-level languages. You don't need to know the actual instructions in assembly anymore to write a program with them. I think the difference is that high-level language instructions are still (mostly) deterministic, while an LLM prompt certaily isn't.

Vibe coders can't debug code because they can't write code

The few times I've used LLMs for coding help, usually because I'm curious if they've gotten better, they let me down. Last time it was insistent that its solution would work as expected. When I gave it an example that wouldn't work, it even broke down each step of the function giving me the value of its variables at each step to demonstrate that it worked... but at the step where it had fucked up, it swapped the value in the variable to one that would make the final answer correct. It made me wonder how much water and energy it cost me to be gaslit into a bad solution.

How do people vibe code with this shit?

100% this. The guy was literally a consultant and a developer. It'd just be bad business for him to outright dismiss AI without having actual hands on experience with said product. Clients want that type of experience and knowledge when paying a business to give them advice and develop a product for them.

And not only did he see for himself, he wrote up and published his results.

Thats exactly what I so often find myself saying when people show off some neat thing that a code bot "wrote" for them in x minutes after only y minutes of "prompt engineering". I'll say, yeah I could also do that in y minutes of (bash scripting/vim macroing/system architecting/whatever), but the difference is that afterwards I have a reusable solution that: I understand, is automated, is robust, and didn't consume a ton of resources. And as a bonus I got marginally better as a developer.

Its funny that if you stick them in an RPG and give them an ability to "kill any level 1-x enemy instantly, but don't gain any xp for it" they'd all see it as the trap it is, but can't see how that's what AI so often is.

As you said, "boilerplate" code can be script generated - and there are IDEs that already do this, but in a deterministic way, so that you don't have to proof-read every single line to avoid catastrophic security or crash flaws.

Other than that it's work that junior coders could be doing, to develop the next generation of actual good developers.