All of your interaction with technology is mediated by other technology.
We all understand that when we say ‘I went on the Internet’ we’re not picturing a person, with no technological assistance whatsoever, inducing current into a wire in encoded pulses according to IEEE 802.3 and scratching the resulting HTML in the dirt with a stick.
So, when someone comes along and says ‘Well, actually, you didn’t do anything because YOUR BROWSER went on the Internet.’ it isn’t actually describing a difference.
Here, the comment isn’t making any argument on why this differentiation matters. It’s just changing the framing to bait anti-AI engagement.
They likely also used other technology, like an IDE, syntax highlighting, auto completion, a linter, git, a programming language that they didn’t invent themselves, libraries made by others… etc.
Implying ‘if they use x tool’ then they didn’t build it is pointless gatekeeping that doesn’t add anything to the discussion except create an on-ramp for more anti-ai bot content.
As I said in my reply directly to you, I don’t have an issue with vibe-coding itself.
And I do understand that our interactions of the world are mediated by tools, but those tools are things we use to assist in our direct input.
… And even independent tools like autocompletion requires me to actually type the words I intend to use. I have a direct input on what the autocompletion does, because its completing my words, not typing them for me.
Prompting an AI to do something isn’t actually doing the thing, it’s managing another entity that does the thing for you.
It’s a tool, but it’s a tool that thinks entirely for itself.
So when vibe-coders say the “coded” something the AI produced, or vibe-artists say they “drew” something an AI generated, it grinds my gears - because its not the same, and will never be.
If you code enough, if you draw enough, you get better at it. If you prompt an AI enough, you don’t get better at either of those things - you just get better at prompting the AI.
All of your interaction with technology is mediated by other technology.
We all understand that when we say ‘I went on the Internet’ we’re not picturing a person, with no technological assistance whatsoever, inducing current into a wire in encoded pulses according to IEEE 802.3 and scratching the resulting HTML in the dirt with a stick.
So, when someone comes along and says ‘Well, actually, you didn’t do anything because YOUR BROWSER went on the Internet.’ it isn’t actually describing a difference.
Here, the comment isn’t making any argument on why this differentiation matters. It’s just changing the framing to bait anti-AI engagement.
They likely also used other technology, like an IDE, syntax highlighting, auto completion, a linter, git, a programming language that they didn’t invent themselves, libraries made by others… etc.
Implying ‘if they use x tool’ then they didn’t build it is pointless gatekeeping that doesn’t add anything to the discussion except create an on-ramp for more anti-ai bot content.
As I said in my reply directly to you, I don’t have an issue with vibe-coding itself.
And I do understand that our interactions of the world are mediated by tools, but those tools are things we use to assist in our direct input.
… And even independent tools like autocompletion requires me to actually type the words I intend to use. I have a direct input on what the autocompletion does, because its completing my words, not typing them for me.
Prompting an AI to do something isn’t actually doing the thing, it’s managing another entity that does the thing for you. It’s a tool, but it’s a tool that thinks entirely for itself.
So when vibe-coders say the “coded” something the AI produced, or vibe-artists say they “drew” something an AI generated, it grinds my gears - because its not the same, and will never be.
If you code enough, if you draw enough, you get better at it. If you prompt an AI enough, you don’t get better at either of those things - you just get better at prompting the AI.