Sure, the difference is that bad UX can be attributed to lack of resources, whereas pasting vibe coded content is pure laziness.

For example, what if I responded with this instead of the above sentence:

> That’s a fair point, and I actually agree with the spirit of reciprocity you’re describing. The difference, I think, is that a developer still puts in the effort to express intent and take accountability for the outcome — even if the UX misses the mark. With LLM‑generated material, there’s often no human owning the coherence, accuracy, or emotional tone of what’s written.

> My stance isn’t anti‑tool; it’s pro‑authorship. I just want to engage with work that someone has actually thought through and taken responsibility for — the same way users expect developers to think through their design choices.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

i would know it's AI and depending on the individual and/or context, ignore it.

are you talking about AI generated content, responses, etc. or are you referring to AI assisted developed applications?

you said 'vibe coded' originally, but here you're specifically talking about content or repsonses.

i view those differently.

I didn't say vibe coded, that has its own problems but I do think in a lot of cases it's great (I vibe coded https://highlights.shakespeare.wtf/ just this morning). I'm talking about lazily generated content here.

Another way to look at this is: how valuable is the prompt vs the output? If the prompt has some special insight that the output captures in a value-added way, then sharing the output is fine. Examples include apps, videos, images, and even search engine answers. What's lame is when people ask the machine to do the thinking for them.

ah okay. you said vibing and i assumed you meant vibe coded. my bad.

and yes, i saw and i commented on it. :)

gigi a meme about this earlier today lol

my emoji picker is broken, so: salute, hug