I think you could be reading into what I'm saying a bit, but I do appreciate your example as gedankenexperiment. I think what you're getting at here is that not everyone should be empowered to code, because coding is powerful, and power can do harmful things, like genocide. Is that right?

If I read one layer further, I think what you might be most concerned with (correct me if I'm wrong) is the conveyance of statistical power in corporate hands, where decisions are often amorally arrived at, and LLMs and their training sets could represent a bad form of this--if they are allowed to be used for ill. Is that right?

I guess I just find it empowering to work on good objectives. I'm the moral agent, and I treat the computer and all of its capabilities as a tool. The AI system I have running on an old(ish) GPU in my closet is powered by solar panels, transcribing my audio notes, and giving me peace of mind that my data is within my digital domain. Adding an LLM to that GPU is part of the ongoing experiment. And if it helps my daughter (who is not a coder) build apps that are just for her and that she loves, well, I'm cool with that (see other posts for details, I have to get back to work now).

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I admire that, despite the clear differences we might feel around the subject. I'll try to be thoughtful as well.

LLMs are the opposite of anything ecological IMHO.

I think this is a really interesting point, and I hope to hear it unpacked some time. I'd be interested to know if you're talking about American LLMs, or some other breed of LLMs, or the transformer algorithm that generates language models itself.

We have a thousand of those already. A better example is needed.

I mentioned this in another reply, but will repeat here a bit. I didn't go into detail in the original post because I wanted to be brief. But the habit tracker app I was thinking about was something my daughter designed. She isn't a coder. But she had a complex set of nuanced motivation ideas for herself--she wanted to make a system where if she didn't something healthy for herself, she would be awarded stars, and if she did something social she would be awarded flowers. I'm doing her app a disservice by abbreviating it. She wrote a 19-page description (Product Requirements Doc, in engineering terms, but she wouldn't know that term) in Google Docs, and then built her app in v0. She was so so excited to see her ideas come to life! It's the first time I've ever seen her really interested in computers.

(re: mold an existing app) That’s not how any of this works. One more reason to shun those who do not care and take the time to understand what programming is all about.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm a FOSS developer. I know what open source is. I also know what it takes to start with an existing open source app and mold it into a new shape, based on new requirements that I have. What am I missing?

Linux is free FFS, install Ubuntu today and you have all the languages you’ll ever need. How is ~~code vomit~~ vibe coding helping? Also LLMs are very expensive to run right now, it’s the worst example.

I'm running an LLM and a transcription service (audio -> text of my notes, synced via syncthing from mobile phone to server, then processed using n8n and a docker image of whisper-asr-webservice) on an nvidia 3080 GPU in my home, powered (mostly) by our solar panels. I'm exploring new paths, and vibecoding seems like an interesting one to me 🤷

Last but not least, I hate how all the CEOs, managers, companies, and random people try to: pretend that open-source does not exist, change the meaning of the word open-source by associating it with binary blobs, and show developers as selfish people (“tech wizards”) who want to keep the technology for themselves.

I'm not sure that I agree with this statement.

You don’t want to learn how computer works and it’s fine, it’s your right, but don’t pretend it’s anyone’s fault.

I guess I didn't think I was blaming anyone here.

My vision for the future is one where it's more equitable--where digital algorithms don't govern our lives like they (primarily at the hands of corporations) do today. I'm exploring what vibecoding might mean if it emancipates people to contribute to the ruleset that is often hidden from their view, especially when they don't have computer/technical expertise (but also by just being a human being in this era, when mobile phones, social media, and unhealthy relating with devices are ubiquitous and basically just "expected" of you).

You're right, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek. But it's a fun name, and I found a lot of people didn't understand "no code / low code" and even more didn't really get excited about it. Vibecoding is interesting to people, I think.

I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're angry at AI, or at least, you'd like it to diminish not grow in use.

I think you're right circa a few years ago. However, as someone working in AI, I don't think it is true any longer. I'm not saying the substack article is legit, btw, just that the fulcrum has shifted--fewer people can now do much more, aided by algorithms and boosted by AI system prompts. Especially if it's a group internal to a company that has database access etc.

My daughter (15f) is an artist and I work at an AI company as a software engineer. We've had a lot of interesting debates. Most recently, she defined Art this way:

"Art is protest against automation."

We thought of some examples:

• when cave artists made paintings in caves, perhaps they were in a sense protesting the automatic forces of nature that would have washed or eroded away their paintings if they had not sought out caves. By painting something that could outlast themselves, perhaps they wished to express, "I am here!"
• when manufacturing and economic factors made kitsch art possible (cheap figurines, mass reprints, etc.), although more people had access to "art" there was also a sense of loss and blandness, like maybe now that we can afford art, this isn't art, actually?
• when computers can produce images that look beautiful in some way or another, maybe this pushes the artist within each of us to find new ground where economic reproducibility can't reach, and where we can continue the story of protest where originality can stake a claim on the ever-unfolding nature of what it means to be human.

I defined Economics this way:

"Economics is the automation of what nature does not provide."

An example:

• long ago, nature automated the creation of apples. People picked free apples, and there was no credit card machine. But humans wanted more apples, and more varieties of apples, and tastier varieties that nature wouldn't make soon enough. So humans created jobs--someone to make apple varieties faster than nature, and someone to plant more apple trees than nature, and someone to pick all of the apples that nature was happy to let rot on the ground as part of its slow orchard re-planting process.

Jobs are created in one of two ways: either by destroying the ability to automatically create things (destroying looms, maybe), or by making people want new things (e.g. the creation of jobs around farming Eve Online Interstellar Kredits). Whenever an artist creates something new that has value, an investor will want to automate its creation.

Where Art and Economics fight is over automation: Art wants to find territory that cannot be automated. Economics wants to discover ways to efficiently automate anything desirable. As long as humans live in groups, I suppose this cycle does not have an end.

What would a good incentive structure look like? For example, would working with public school districts and being paid by them to ensure safe learning experiences count? Or are you thinking of something else?

Have you ever heard the story of the snake?

One evening, a man walks along a dimly lit path. He suddenly halts, his heart pounding with fear. Before him, on the ground, lies what appears to be a venomous snake. He freezes, paralyzed with dread. Only when a friend comes by with a lantern does the true nature of the object come to light: it is merely a piece of rope.

I learned this story from Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist author. He would indicate with stories like this that our perceptions shape our reality. Often, we react out of fear and misunderstanding, seeing snakes where there are none. He said that mindfulness and deeper understanding can act like the lantern, illuminating the true nature of our experiences.

"We know better than you" has never been an effective way to change other peoples' minds, in my experience.

I appreciate your question, but I think "we know" is problematic:

• who is "we"?
• how do we "know"?
• can some people know one thing while others know the opposite?

I'm not trolling, either, just asking questions from a philosophical point of view. I've changed my mind about several things I took very seriously and thought I was 100% right about. Could others be dealing with similar changing-mind-through-time processes? Could you?

Wolf in sheep's clothing

Thanks!