I agree if you one-shot something, but that hasn't been my experience at all (unless the initial prompt is so detailed that creating it took considerable time).

For me it's more like being a chef but having a cook to cut up things and start cooking them, but you decide when it's done, what spices to put, and how to serve it - arguably the most fun and creative part.

That is almost to say that the only part of the project that matters is the code. But the code is only a tiny part. I take joy in describing the thing and bringing that vision to life.

You didn't bring anything to life. You just described it.

I mostly agree with this sentiment, and have a hard time describing anything LLM generated as "mine". However, would you say that the designers at Apple, or Steve Jobs for example didn't "bring the Macintosh to life" because they didn't work on any of the engineering or code? It's a hard line to draw.

Leading a collaborative effort can obviously be described as bringing the project to life. People want to feel like they are collaborating with LLMs and are still the visionary in the process. As the performance of these systems improves that becomes less and less the case.

E.g. if Steve Jobs had simply handed a slip of paper to a team that said "make a new kind of computer", then no, he would not have brought the Macintosh to life.

No, its a very easy line to draw. Rallying and bringing together humans is COMPLETELY different than having an LLM do something. They are not comparable.

No you're just drawing a new arbitrary distinction

In no way shape or form is the distinction between LLMs and Humans arbitrary in any sense.

They are two different things, LLMs are not humans.

So the one orchestrating them would have an even stronger claim to having 'created' something, given its simply a tool?

We’re all middle managers now

"You didn't bring anything to life. You just described how it should be done by the computer using code. The CPU is doing the real work!"

Completely arbitrary distinction. Effort is not more valuable than the results of the effort. This is a mindset that will keep you trapped.

I completely disagree. The mindset that leaves you trapped is focusing on the destination and not the journey. I will never paint like Michaelangelo but it feels good to apply myself to the pursuit of painting, even if the resulting paintings aren't good.

"That is almost to say that the only part of the meal that matters is the cooking. But the cooking is only a tiny part. I take joy in describing the food I want and bringing that vision to life."

Or like going to the gym but using a forklift to lift the weights. Yes, barbells are traveling up and down, but is that the point of going to the gym?

Everyone working in warehouses should stop using forklifts and use their hands like real creatives!

Bad example. This is analogous to people prompting an LLM to "generate code for the sake of it" which of course nobody is doing.

What are you trying to say? There are a ton of people who care more about being able to make something they're imagining real than engaging in the process necessary to make it happen. This applies to food just as well as it does to software

It's a bad analogy, because unless you're cooking a recipe, cooking is about all the small decisions you're making during the process which could apply both to coding or the design aspect of building software with an LLM.

Except most vibe coders proudly admit that they don't even look at the code anymore. Can you really make those small decisions during the cooking process if you're not touching or even looking at the food at any point?

The distinction that can be drawn is between the code, and the user experience of the software. You may argue that the two are inextricably linked, but I don’t think that can be treated as an absolute principle.

I'd also say I've worked with many engineers over the years who were more focused on the software engineering aspect that the user experience. Depending on the use case for the software, that can absolutely end up being the limiting factor.

> "I take joy in describing the thing and bringing that vision to life."

That's what management pats itself on the back for doing, the only difference being that it's taking credit for the work the LLM does instead of taking credit for the work of human subordinates. The trope of the "ideas guy" is derided for a reason.

Let the LLM do the 80% and then you take all the credit by decorating the code in your style.

What’s intellectually “mine” is the task anyway, not the code.

You should be able to strip all the creative intelligence out of the code and what you’d have there is a prompt.

No, it's like ordering a meal from door dash and saying "I got food." Using a tool does not mean you didn't do the thing you used the tool to do.

You're conflating "I made X" with "I personally did every part of X with no help," which is really not something to brag about as much as it is something that might fulfill your own personal sense of value.

I don't agree. That would imply they asked for a piece of software and the LLM one-shotted it, but that's absolutely not what's happening in the vast majority of cases. If two people vibe code the same tool from the same high level desciption the results are going to be quite different.

It's more like calling the restaurant and giving them a description of a custom meal that you want them to prepare for you.