Talk:Vibe coding

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Vibe coding}}

I was vibe coding before this guy and I think to say you don't understand the output at all is way too strict a definition. Just say "I coded this by having a conversation with an LLM". You do not need to propgate some stupid term that messes with the meaning of the word "vibe". This is just stupid meme.

Firstly, saying anything positive about something AI-related necessarily implies a level of investment in the perception of AI that automatically kills one's ability to satisfy WP:NPOV, and it does it so thoroughly that it makes assertions like "The practice defies the belief in the software industry that software engineering demands great skill" seem neutral.

Second, this article depends *heavily* on a source that consists of a non-programmer—a non-expert—gawping at what he openly compares to magic—"Vibe coding 'can feel like sorcery'."

Third, who *cares* what some random tweet says? The bare fact of its inclusion suggests that the person who added it is scrounging for things to say in defense of a position—out of step with neutrality—and casts doubts on whether it satisfies WP:NOTE.

All in all, this article feels like someone trying to peddle AI to non-technical people using the façade of Wikipedia for credibility. "Look, you can use AI to make things just happen!" It gives the barest attempt at making itself seem neutral, but it fails because it has to try.

Anyway, I think this article should be deleted.

Arkadios 200 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Whether this specific buzzword will survive more than a few weeks remains to be seen, and I'd agree it seems a little early to have its own article. Perhaps the most significant information in this article could be distilled into an additional paragraph under Generative artificial intelligence#Code for now. If this concept proves to be notable in the long run then it could perhaps become part of a broader article analogous to Music and artificial intelligence, where it could be presented together with other encyclopedic information on the overall use of generative AI in software engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.93.93 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::Even if it does survive, and even if it did still somehow deserve its own article, I don't think this should be its final title. "AI-dependent software engineering" or some such, with a note in the lead that it's colloquially known as "vibe coding".

::Arkadios 200 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe more specific, like "LLM-dependent software engineering or "LLM-dependent development"? One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the cited sources reference the original Andrej Karpathy tweet, which makes me wonder if there's an issue there.Autarch (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that would count as falling short of WP:MADEUP. Arkadios 200 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::This article is failing on so many levels that I'm not sure which one to go for. Someone posts a tweet and gets an op-ed written about a fad, and then leverages that to claim relevance for a dedicated page on Wikipedia? There's far more relevant technology trends and terms with a solid history that are buried in paragraphs of broader context pages and don't have their own dedicated entries. This topic as-is lacks context, fails WP:SIGNIF, WP:FAILN, and yeah, is kinda WP:MADEUP. Honestly, I'm getting a whiff of astroturfing.

:::::If there's an appropriate page that tracks current fad slang in the industry, this should go there as a paragraph. If not, I vote for speedy deletion. Shana (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Initially I felt the same way, but I can't find any concrete policy that it's violating. It's a fad, but it's certainly received WP:SIGCOV, even if WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Aprzn (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::These buzzwords will become the new infomercials, selling a free product that produces the very very lowest quality results: BIAS!

::This is not cited!

::https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTCoding/comments/1d3ole7/the_downside_of_coding_with_ai_beyond_your/?rdt=42335 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Roose is ... heavily non technical and has a track record of credulity. I recall his promotion of cryptocurrency in the NYT in 2022 just a few months before it crashed. NYT coverage is an evidence point toward notability, but there are significant reasons to doubt a Roose article as a good source for technical claims - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::It would only count toward notability by how much some guy's tweet deserves an article in NYT in the first place. If NYT wrote an article about my socks, that wouldn't be a reason to create an article about them here. Arkadios 200 (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Who says that this article was not vibe-coded? How do I nominate this article for speedy deletion? This is not the most worthless article on Wikipedia, but it could be. Its close. Its both a meme and puff piece, and both an advertisement for OpenAI, and for blind coding. Monkeys with typewriters are better coders... if you use OpenAI to train them. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Then publish an op/ed in a reliable source and it can be cited here. Barte (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Op eds don't inherit the reliability of the publisher, do they? 2405:6583:F240:6200:350A:487C:5091:FD62 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Seems to me the article describes an actual phenomenon--non-programmers creating programs using generative AI. A web search shows articles using the term, including The New York Times (opinions of Roose here aren't relevant--NYT's is a reliable source) and Business Insider, as noted, as well as [https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/is-vibe-coding-with-ai-gnarly-or-reckless-maybe-some-of-both/ Ars Techinca] and [https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2025/03/10/vibe-coding-the-ai-revolution-thats-making-vcs-bet-big-on-human-intuition/ Forbes]. If it reads like advertising, I'm not seeing it, regardless of who created it. I could imagine a competing term that means the same thing prevail. Which would mean either changing the name of this one or merging. But for the while, I think we should give this one room to grow. Barte (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::This isn't a place for things that are growing, though. It's a place for things that have grown. Arkadios 200 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi everyone, looking at policies here's my perspective:

::The page should exist because "vibe coding" satisfies the WP:GNG since it has {{tq|received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject}}. Significant being multiple articles in reliable secondary sources with "vibe coding" in the title and being the main subject of the article.

::Per WP:TITLE {{tq|Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.}} All our reliable sources call it "vibe coding" apart from Roose who calls it "vibecoding". No sources are calling it anything else. If further sources end up calling this practice something different then we can update. AndyGordon (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, I think edits in the past few days have improved the page as per the concerns in the multiple-issues banner. Are there specific concerns remaining? Otherwise I'd be minded to remove that banner. AndyGordon (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Welp, now I know for the future: All I have to do to get a Wikipedia article is come up with a vaguely memey buzzword and get an NYT tech stooge to goggle at its genius. Arkadios 200 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::In addition to the NYT, vibe coding has been covered as a significant trend in Ars Technica, The Times of India, Business Insider, The New Stack, TechCrunch and Forbes.

:::::And Arkadios, your tone isn't productive. PopMechanic (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::And I don't think it's productive to let someone who found it suitable to include this in the first version of the article:

::::::{{Blockquote|text=Vibe coding is an approach to programming with AI where you give in the "vibe" of the AI, accept its growing power, and ignore the details of the code itself.

::::::}}

::::::have a say in the future of the article, especially when it's about something he has a vested interest in ensuring a positive perception of.

::::::Arkadios 200 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed; this is essentially a brand-new buzzword that simply vaguely describes the concept of blind copy-pasting from LLMs — I think this is already covered in other articles, and there is no reason to believe the term will stick around. B0BABABE (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The term was [https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 coined] by Andrej Karpathy and has been [https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/is-vibe-coding-with-ai-gnarly-or-reckless-maybe-some-of-both/ adopted by] respectable publications such as Ars Technica. -- Truong85 (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Delete. A famous person making up a phrase and articles about the tweet in which he made up the phrase do not inherently make the phrase noteworthy in the long term.

:2405:6583:F240:6200:990C:2666:6D9B:E9A6 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Article based on a pointless meme. Tordek (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, I don't understand what RFD means in this setting? Please explain. "Request for deletion" "Request for redirection"? I don't know. AndyGordon (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree and I came here to mention this too. This article reeks of a marketing attempt for something that has no historical basis. This is clearly an attempt to establish a new idea, which isn't Wikipedia's purpose. parautenbach (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Vibe coding has been covered in depth as a significant new trend in computer science by Ars Technica, The Times of India, The New York Times, Forbes, and more. In what specific ways do you claim that this topic fails the WP:GNG? PopMechanic (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Programming isn't computer science, although most if not all computer scientists are also programmers. If this is specifically a trend for non-programmers then I don't see how it can be a trend in the field that is almost entirely comprised of programmers. The Forbes article is written by a tech entrepreneur under the category "Venture Capital", so that isn't beating the sales-pitch buzzword allegations. None of the articles listed are particularly "in-depth", and most if not all of them spend a fairly significant part of their length talking about the tweet that coined the term. I'll be more convinced when the authors don't feel the need to spend more than a sentence discussing the origin of the term because the focus is on the practice and not the buzzword. 2405:6583:F240:6200:350A:487C:5091:FD62 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The Forbes reference states at the top of the page that the author is a Contributor, and WP:FORBESCON indicates that articles from Forbes Contributors are generally unreliable - they don't go through the same oversight as regular Forbes articles. The Times of India also has a warning that it "has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution". From what I've seen they often like to report on things that are trending on social media, even if they aren't really significant, just to drive clicks to their website. I wouldn't use them as evidence of notability. – numbermaniac 10:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It fails several, or I should say it did, since there have been many updates to the article since my comment. What is still lacks, is a criticism section. For example, the statement that coding in natural language is a good idea is highly disputable, due to the ambiguity of natural language (it's the whole point of formal languages). There are also questionable statistics mentioned. How robust were those analyses? Has it been reviewed or confirmed by others. It's all highly speculative.

::::Let's start with the sources: Of what are those secondary sources? They're all news articles, not citing primary sources.

::::In my view, siginificant coverage cannot be considered as news sites parroting each other. Has there been books published on the subject? Has there been (significant) research done in this field? What (measurable) impact has it had? Etc. parautenbach (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Computer scientist here. I've heard the term a couple of times so I came here to see if there was a definition and some discussion of it. There was, so please do keep it so that other folks have a chance to figure out what it is! --WiseWoman (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|WiseWoman}} Your wish granted. See top of this page. Barte (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion of a newly-created and exceedingly minor community amounts to nothing more than a membership drive. It should not be included unless it gains prominence that is recognized by reliable sources. 2405:6583:F240:6200:350A:487C:5091:FD62 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Additionally, Reddit is generally not considered a reliable source (WP:RS) as it consists of user-generated content without editorial oversight. HerBauhaus (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed that Merriam-Webster (MW) added vibe coding to its dictionary on 8 March, calling it "writing computer code in a somewhat careless fashion, with AI assistance." It also says vibe coders "do not need to understand how or why the code works" and have to "accept that a certain number of bugs and glitches will be present."

A bit of a different take from how Ars and The NYT frame it as an AI-assisted approach that lowers barriers to software development, not necessarily careless. MW also notes the term is still evolving. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Cited the listing in the lede. Barte (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:How do we know it's not citogenesis? Hplotter (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I noticed my link to VibeCodingList.com was removed. I believe it adds value because it provides a curated list of AI-generated coding projects, showcasing real-world examples of vibe coding in action.

Since the article explains the concept, having a directory of projects would help readers see actual implementations.

I’d love to hear thoughts on whether an external resource like this is helpful. Thanks! Vibecoder (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Idt we need this, vibe coding is not hard to do/replicate (that's kinda the point of it). Also, Wikipedia has a duty to be neutral, showcasing a set of random projects does not highlight the problems with it. Sohom (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also, given their username, it looks like an attempt to advertise their own website on a Wikipedia article. – numbermaniac 06:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing on that website looks notable enough to warrant its inclusion. Fly Pieter is probably the most notable since it has been reported to make $50,000/month, but I don't expect it to last - it's an advertising space with unmaintainable code more than an actual game. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to address several points on this discussion page by adding the following at the end of the definition section:

```

To distinguish this approach of using coding LLMs with Software craftsmanship from Karpathy's concept of 'vibe coding,' the term 'Vise Coding' has been proposed.{{Cite web |last=Farago |first=David |date=2025-03-18 |title=Vise Coding |url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vise-coding-david-farago-1k5ce/ |publisher=LinkedIn|access-date=2025-03-30 |language=en-US}} This term alludes to how documentation and process serve to hold the code's quality steady, similar to how a craftsman's vise securely holds materials in place.

```

However, I got some warning that it might be a promotion. To copy and paste the exact error message here, I hit publish again, but the second time it got accepted without warning. Feel free to delete the addition!

:It is definitely self promotion for User:DavidFarago to add a citation to a personal blog post by David Farago. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, self-promotion. Social media posts with 19 likes don't meet the standards Wikipedia has for references in any way, shape or form. I also haven't been able to find anyone else using the term "vise coding" - search results (with quotation marks) yield your article and few other results. Here's an example from Pi#tau of a proposition with suitable sources:

:{{Quote|Some have proposed replacing {{pi}} by Tau (mathematical constant), arguing that {{mvar|τ}}, as the number of radians in one turn or the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius, is more natural than {{pi}} and simplifies many formulae.{{cite book|last1=Freiberger|first1=Marianne|last2=Thomas|first2=Rachel|contribution=Tau – the new {{pi}}|contribution-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IbR-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT133|isbn=978-1-62365-411-5|page=159|publisher=Quercus|title=Numericon: A Journey through the Hidden Lives of Numbers|year=2015}}{{cite journal |last=Abbott |first=Stephen |title=My Conversion to Tauism |journal=Math Horizons |date=April 2012 |volume=19 |issue=4 |page=34 |doi=10.4169/mathhorizons.19.4.34 |s2cid=126179022 |url=http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130928095819/http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf |archive-date=28 September 2013}}{{cite journal |last=Palais |first=Robert |title={{pi}} Is Wrong!|journal=The Mathematical Intelligencer|year=2001|volume=23|issue=3|pages=7–8|doi=10.1007/BF03026846|s2cid=120965049 |url=http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120622070009/http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.pdf|archive-date=22 June 2012}} This use of {{math|τ}} has not made its way into mainstream mathematics,{{cite journal |url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110630/jsp/nation/story_14178997.jsp |title=Life of pi in no danger – Experts cold-shoulder campaign to replace with tau |journal=Telegraph India |date=30 June 2011|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130713084345/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110630/jsp/nation/story_14178997.jsp |archive-date=13 July 2013}} but since 2010 this has led to people celebrating Two Pi Day or Tau Day on June 28.{{Cite web

|title=Forget Pi Day. We should be celebrating Tau Day {{!}} Science News

|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-the-public/forget-pi-day-we-should-be-celebrating-tau-day

|first=Emily

|last=Conover

|date=March 14, 2018

|access-date=2023-05-02

|language=en-US}}}}

:Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

I have therefore added the press release template to the top of the page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vibe_coding&oldid=1289339853). I have also moved the LLM prompt below the intro section, because on mobile that makes it show up before the page content and that is really unhelpful for people trying to understand what a new term means and are instead faced with computer code without any context. I have modified the initial sentence which claims it as a "programming paradigm" without any citations and instead clarified that it is a marketing slogan in the initial sentence. I think the request for deletion in the other talk page section wasn't a bad idea, but if we're going to keep this, then we need to make sure it (a) actually explains what the thing is (b) does not make wild claims about novel programming paradigms without citation. Lcdrovers (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that "programming paradigm" is iffy. But I don't think you've remotely made the case that the article itself is promotional. Barte (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Barte @Lcdrovers I may be the person that introduced word paradigm in context of vibe coding, in Polish wiki, before English article was updated. I based it on Google Scholar research and I try not to to give personal opinion. I never agreed with e.g. Aspect-oriented programming as a viable concept, yet it is a paradigm. Karmelki90 (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with both the above, I've reverted your edits since they appear to putting a specific negative POV on the article intro which does not appear to be RS backed. The article tries to mentions both sides, the good and the bad side of vibe coding and literally points out that a RS has called it a buzzword and has a heavily negative "limitations" section. I don't see how you are getting the "press-release" vibes. Sohom (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Karmelki90: thanks for the above clarification. Barte (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)