them: “Your ‘problem’ is simple. I can fix it, easy. Here is the fix, you’re welcome.”
me: “Great! how does it work? how do we test it? did you get management to assign some resources for this?”
them: "oh, this was vibecoded, so I’m not providing support , maintenance or user testing - that’s your job isn’t it? Here’s a 250-page ‘documentation’. I haven’t read it, but I ran it through a second LLM and asked that to fix any errors. So there’s probably only a few left that you should be able to fix in a few minutes. "
me: " I will take up work on a farm administering anal suppositories to sick horses because that will be a thousand times more tolerable . . ."
them: " . . . by the way - it just operates using dummy data for now. You’ll just need to link it in to the actual database before you release it."
So familiar. We had a requirement and said we would work it if management agreed, sales guy: “no need, I just vibed it”, then confused as the very first person trying to use it fell over, and when they manually fixed the broken result, someone else demonstrated a critical vulnerability in the concept as vibed, even when working as ‘intended’.
Whatever utility the new stuff can provide, it’s not worth the collatoral bullshit. Maybe after the bubble bursts and people get bored of coding without actually understanding what is going on more sane usage can happen…
Yes, in my experience its goes like:
me: " This is a problem for us"
them: “Your ‘problem’ is simple. I can fix it, easy. Here is the fix, you’re welcome.”
me: “Great! how does it work? how do we test it? did you get management to assign some resources for this?”
them: "oh, this was vibecoded, so I’m not providing support , maintenance or user testing - that’s your job isn’t it? Here’s a 250-page ‘documentation’. I haven’t read it, but I ran it through a second LLM and asked that to fix any errors. So there’s probably only a few left that you should be able to fix in a few minutes. "
me: " I will take up work on a farm administering anal suppositories to sick horses because that will be a thousand times more tolerable . . ."
them: " . . . by the way - it just operates using dummy data for now. You’ll just need to link it in to the actual database before you release it."
So familiar. We had a requirement and said we would work it if management agreed, sales guy: “no need, I just vibed it”, then confused as the very first person trying to use it fell over, and when they manually fixed the broken result, someone else demonstrated a critical vulnerability in the concept as vibed, even when working as ‘intended’.
Whatever utility the new stuff can provide, it’s not worth the collatoral bullshit. Maybe after the bubble bursts and people get bored of coding without actually understanding what is going on more sane usage can happen…
Oh God how horrible 🫣
Linking it to the database causes both it and the database to disintegrate into a large collection of files called restored_data_chunk_0x124FCCAD.tmp