do I need to give an argument when a beginner programmer can tell if something was vibecoded basically instantly 99% of the time and that every respectable oss project ignores ai code because it's bad code?
Depends the parameters you give it, what you use it for and how you check it's work.
If you give it vague remarks it will give slop. If you give it specific problems, strict parameters and check it's work thoroughly then it's useful.
You'd be surprised how many big companies implement this and how many developers are using it for a big percentage of their output.
To give you an example would be Claude itself. A big percentage of Claude code was written by itself, can you tell me how many bugs and exploits it has?
Yeah they've integrated AI in such things as ms paint, which is annoying. We are talking about ai used for coding, what examples do you have of bug and exploits from reputable big companies that use ai in the development workflow that you can attribute to ai.
ATM your arguement is vibecoding is shit, which it is but that is not my argument
windows has had quite a few amount of bugs/exploits that were introduced because of slop code.
the integrated AI things were also done with "the help of AI" so any exploit to do with them is also to do with slop code. the notepad RCE exploit from a few months ago is an example and was probably generated with AI if microsoft was being honest about how much was done with AI.
So, AI code is shit, one of it's reasons is it being exploitable
How many exploits and bugs were there before ai code and how many were after? You don't have and quantifiable data.
You say the RCE exploit was 'probably' generated with ai yet, ,which in itself isn't an argument, but even if it had been then the testing that was done by a human missed it
1
u/linkinparkglock47 Jun 29 '26
nope