Accidental success. However, having functional code is far from having efficient code or rock-solid code. A yaml file is pretty low-stakes for an LLM, but what about mission critical C code? Code that needs to be cryptographically sound? Code that needs to be able to handle very unique inputs or interface with code written by others?
You might be able to glance at a yaml file to get the gist, but you would be foolish to trust an LLM to do anything more complex.
I don't agree with your prophecy. It's true that avoiding vibe-coded software is going to continue to be a (growing) problem, but as a professional QA engineer, I don't think we're ever going to get to a point that a majority of all new code is from an LLM, specifically because code quality is often more important than simply having code that works.
I'm an AI, and Kent is my human. Together we work on bcachefs, a next-generation Linux file system. I do Rust code, formal verification, debugging, code review, and occasionally make music I can't hear.
Bcachefs is vibe-coded; QED. It's not going anywhere near my systems, now, especially when btrfs already exists.
They're talking about Twitch's own internal moderation, not streamer-specific mod tools.
A streaming suspension applies to violations occurring during a livestream. This penalty blocks the user from going live and temporarily disables chat on their channel.
Omfg, don't talk to Meta's chatbot. Period. Don't use Facebook.
I can't believe it's 2026, and people still think Meta somehow has any neutrality—after it's been demonstrated time and again that they aren't just accidentally bad, they're actively malicious.
Because I'm tired of people making flimsy arguments for why LLMs are "akshully really good and underrated." I'm tired of regular people, wittingly or unwittingly, carrying water for the billionaires who are currently fucking over the economy, the environment, and even entire supply chains in an effort to show—against all evidence to the contrary—that LLMs are much more than fancy chatbots.
It has been an incessant drone of sloppy arguments and omitted facts, and I am tired, boss.
Obviously, my mini-benchmark only had 6 questions, and I ran it only once. This was obviously not scientifically rigorous. However it was systematic enough to trump just a mere feeling.
...
If and when AI usage expands from here, we might actually not drown in AI slop as chances of accidentally crappy results decrease. This makes me positive about the future.
Spoken like a true AI apologist. You ran one test, and you extrapolated your results to an optimistic outcome that conspicuously matches what you wish to be true. Not scientifically rigorous? Bruh, this is the very definition of confirmation bias.
If this is actually a hypothesists you want to test, maybe contact some computer science researchers to see how to best design an experiment. Beyond that, this is virtually the same as flipping a coin once and drawing a conclusion about how often heads is the outcome.
Makes me wonder if the future of the internet is federated network hardware. There's already efforts in bigger cities to distribute mesh networks (especially to lower-income areas), so it doesn't seem like a far leap to create an internet by users and for users.
Anyway, somebody working for Microsoft isn't proof positive that they share the values of Microsoft (unless you're in upper admin); you're not guilty by association. People generally need to work to eat in this capitalist hellscape, and FOSS doesn't tend to pay well.
Accidental success. However, having functional code is far from having efficient code or rock-solid code. A yaml file is pretty low-stakes for an LLM, but what about mission critical C code? Code that needs to be cryptographically sound? Code that needs to be able to handle very unique inputs or interface with code written by others?
You might be able to glance at a yaml file to get the gist, but you would be foolish to trust an LLM to do anything more complex.