The narrow term is very useful, there is obviously a world of difference between reviewing the output of an LLM and not - the latter is irresponsible. It shouldn’t be surprising that people bristle when being accused of it. It doesn’t make sense to accuse someone of redefining a term to make themselves feel better when the history of the term shows that yours is the redefinition. The simpler explanation is that the accused just doesn’t like being called irresponsible - not that they’re trying to defend LLM code generation from someone who doesn’t like it.

You're saying what I'm saying. They feel self conscious about the term "vibe coding".

And to be clear, nobody accused the people who lashed out here. They reacted to general statements that people are vibe coding.

I also don't understand why the term vibe coding couldn't contain a spectrum of responsible use. Just say you're reviewing your vibe coded commits!

Clearly the issue here is about how vibe coders perceive the term vibe coding. Some of them feel that it's demeaning and are trying to wiggle their way out of the label by arguing semantics.

No, people think it’s demeaning because they are using a different definition to you, the definition which was the original one. Don’t know how I can put it clearer.

You say no, but then you agree that they think it's demeaning. Are you saying no just to say no, because you dislike how I'm framing this?

I don't think you've shown that the narrow definition is the original one. That's just a claim with no evidence or argument for it.

If you think the tweet is that evidence, I disagree. The tweet itself could be used to support both definitions. Personally I think it's more inline with the broader definition (see previous posts in this thread).

I think the tweet is crystal clear evidence that “vibe coding” was meant to mean “LLM code generation without reviewing the generated code”. Plenty of other parent commenters in this thread clearly think the same. Think what you like, but your interpretation is very strange, and the pushback and downvotes you’re getting is because of that.

This is still not an argument.

You are still just stating opinions without any arguments. If you think the tweet is crystal clear evidence of your point, please show why. If you think my interpretation is strange (even though I've already shown you two normative sources that agree with me), please show why.

Look, there's already a term for unreviewed nonsensical genAI output: slop. The original tweet does not comment on the quality of the cod; slop otoh is specifically about the quality of the output. Call it slop if you want to specify that it's unreviewed.

Downvotes are not proof of anything. I'm getting roughly 0.5 downvotes per post, that's to be expected when multiple people are disagreeing with me about something they care about. And HN has been flooded by LLM enthusiasts for the past couple of years. This is not surprising.

Correct, I'm not making an argument on the quality of the evidence, I'm expressing a different opinion and explaining the disconnect. I'm not interested in convincing you as I don't think that will happen, but I did think that you were missing a distinction and could understand the difference even if you thought differently. Apparently not.