Shouldn't "No bots or computer-generated content?" apply to vibe-coded projects?
Or at least have a rule similar to "Blockchain posts must be tagged", i.e. "AI assisted posts must be tagged".
19
u/emilypii 1d ago
I'd be fine with generally adopting the rule that a convincingly human user should do any posting here, and I'm okay with adding the blockchain tag, but i don't see the value in an AI-assisted post tag. I'd love a *slop* tag, which differentiates and shames the kind of ill-concieved, milled content that gives AI assistance a bad name.
But let's be real here: at this point, I'd wager about 95% of us are AI-assisted in some way. Let's focus on dissuading the bad AI usage behaviors and promote the good AI usage behaviors :)
4
u/Fedor_Doc 1d ago
AI assisted tag in llama.cpp manner + human-written description should be a standard, IMO.
4
u/dnkndnts 1d ago
at this point, I'd wager about 95% of us are AI-assisted in some way
I highly doubt that. What I see is a concerted effort by vibecoders to assert that akshually everyone is just like them, when in reality we're not. Many of us find the entire notion repulsive.
5
u/unqualified_redditor 21h ago
I dunno. I have so many negative feelings about AI but the impact on our industry is undeniable at this point. Everyone at my work, including me, uses it heavily for development. I hear the same thing from many other extremely qualified engineers.
In my free time I use it depending on the context. There are certain places where I would never use AI (anywhere I am trying to learn or explore math and computer science) but there are also many tools I just want to crank out for their outcome rather then the process of making them. In those cases AI is a big convenience.
All that said, if I got to make the decision if we should put the genie back in the bottle I would with no hesitation.
-6
u/TheOneExpert 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah I rarely met a programmer, irl or online, that isnât hardline anti-AI, or at least finds it pretty obnoxious and annoying.
There is a very vocal minority of boosters, followed by a small group of people that just use this tech because they donât realize the implications of it (and are pretty reasonable to talk with). Otherwise mostly everyone either uses it because they absolutely have to (at their jobs) or completely avoids it.
saying that â95% of us are AI-assistedâ is actually insane. Ignoring people being forced to use AI, Iâd be surprised if that actually goes above 5%. Probably well under 0.1% if you only consider the people that are truly consistently vibecoding rather than just âeh I use AI once in a while for curiosity and laughsâ.
Itâs important to recognize that weâre not talking about a âtoolâ here. Weâre talking about a corporate scam piggybacking on an extremely mid technology thatâs disassociated in every way from what theyâre actually advertising (as in, ML can be used for great good for like.. detecting cancer and such. But generative AI is nothing but hype-fueled hysteria)
3
u/_lazyLambda 23h ago
I think I understand better what you mean in other threads. 1000000% agree that theres hysteria. Its obviously all for marketing reasons they try to say its gonna end the world, its gonna take all your jobs etc etc etc. All garbage. But if you get past all that crap and use AI you realize its a decently useful tool. Its probably about as valuable as your average CLI tool and ultimately its a stream editor that can write stream editors. People try to drive it to create the cure to cancer or build a million dollar business. Kinda stupid to believe that cuz its gonna fall apart when it hits any novelty it wasnt trained on. But is it capable of turning "add another handler using my established patterns" in the context of a well done codebase, a change which ive done 50 times over, into a new route yes. SPJ's opinion on this sums it up, AI should be banned from writing GHC but are you really gonna say it cant do simple basic tasks I can break down into 5 english steps? This is absurd, and is disproven everyday.
My point is people hate the marketing hysteria of AI and that its 1000% legal IP theft. I really wish that part would change but frankly until that AI which credits its sources exist it doesnt exist, and the people who hate AI always try to talk about how awful it is and take out their very valid hatred of Sam Altman or Dario Amodei on the dev whos using the AI even though we're all just trying to make a buck here and feed our families for crying out loud.
1
u/philh 11h ago
Its obviously all for marketing reasons they try to say its gonna end the world
This isn't marketing.
This got published on the topic just today. I admittedly haven't read it yet, it's not what convinced me, but I expect it to be worth reading.
Kinda stupid to believe that cuz its gonna fall apart when it hits any novelty it wasnt trained on.
Given everything we've seen LLMs do, either this is false or they did it all without hitting anything novel. And if they've done all that without hitting anything novel, what makes you think you can say "okay, but this thing would need them to do something novel, so it's out of their range"?
5
u/NNOTM 23h ago
You might be in a bubble. According to the stackoverflow developer survey this year, 60% had favorable views of AI in development. According to a JetBrains survey in 2025, 85% of developers regularly used AI for development.
Granted, the numbers for Haskell developers could be somewhat lower, I don't know.
1
u/unqualified_redditor 21h ago
I agree. I don't think there is any way to turn back to the before time. Perhaps we should have an optional tag for non-AI content instead?
9
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
Depends what you mean by vibe coded. If someone did a one shot slop job to make a post and they havent even tested their code then sure but who cares how someone did it as long as their quality is good. Would make more sense to ask for quality metrics than to just say we dont like AI lets ban it cuz frankly its harder and harder to tell every month and like does web search via AI to research project count? Wheres the line
-4
u/TheOneExpert 1d ago
Hard disagree.
We shouldnât normalize the acceptance (even if partial) of a product fundamentally wrong, deceiving and designed to deskill and addict people.
I really donât care about âqualityâ. I care about things with dedicated creative people behind them. About hearing stories and learning, and being part of something.
Banning AI isnât about witch hunting, or ensuring quality or purity, it has nothing to do with those. Itâs about sending a message of âwe donât accept these fundamentally bad faith actors or products hereâ.
The line is at using AI to generate anything. I donât think anyone has ever tried to ban researching using AI.
2
u/effectfully 8h ago
> I care about things with dedicated creative people behind them. About hearing stories and learning, and being part of something.
And some people care about getting shit done. Which sometimes means using AI, because it can be an efficient and good enough tool to use.
1
12
u/sjshuck 1d ago
I'd like to sincerely articulate the supposedly extreme position that AI-coded works are uninteresting, their "authors" are not knowledgeable about the code and need AI to answer questions about it, and are as far as I can tell dead-ends in terms of social media, open-source software, and learning/pedagogy, and people should refrain from posting about them.
Very happy to be down-voted for this.
7
u/krenoten 1d ago
shrug if that's how you feel about Kmett then I don't have a lot of sympathy. The fact is, the leaders are continuing to lead with these accelerating tools.
2
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
I don't understand how that follows.
3
u/krenoten 1d ago
u/sjshuck claims that the people who use AI to generate code don't know how the generated systems work, and that they don't make interesting things. I can agree this happens most of the time, but leaders will continue pushing the boundaries in interesting ways because they understand the parts that matter well enough. I have plenty of mixed feelings too, but there are cool things made by inspiring leaders in our field mixed in with the bad societal impact things too.
-2
u/sjshuck 1d ago
It's authoritarian brain, which is what AI is meant to cultivate.
I've discussed ekmett's code with him, in person, and have contributed PRs to his libraries and gotten them accepted. I have spent a good amount of time evangelizing lens. I am probably more acquainted with the details and breadth of his contributions to the community than our friend here. And yet, here is our friend, seeing attacks against his "leader" where there were none at all.
There's no arguing with that.
3
4
u/unqualified_redditor 20h ago
You completely missed the point. Ed Kmett has heavily embraced LLMs in his THC project. According to you this makes him "not knowledgeable about the code" which is obviously not the case.
Also this is hilariously egotistical and gross to say out loud even if it were true:
I am probably more acquainted with the details and breadth of his contributions to the community than our friend here
0
u/sjshuck 19h ago
Why is that "obviously not the case"? Try to answer without arguing from authority. I bet you can't.
As for my egotism, you're a better judge of that than me. Let's say I'm arrogant, though. Well, I'd rather be arrogant than hide behind notions of "leaders" to win arguments.
5
u/unqualified_redditor 19h ago
Why is that "obviously not the case"? Try to answer without arguing from authority. I bet you can't.
Its obviously not the case because he has written a blog post, answered questions on reddit, and done a podcast interview all where he demonstrated an understanding of the project he produced.
If anyone is making an appeal to authority its you when you listed credentials to bolster your position.
Well, I'd rather be arrogant than hide behind notions of "leaders" to win arguments.
I never called anyone a leader. I said you misunderstood why someone brought up Kmett in this context.
0
u/sjshuck 11h ago
That does not address my claim about AI coding. Every one of these Reddit posters could write a blog post or answer questions on Reddit. In fact, they often do. It doesn't change the fact that they haven't written the code themselves but rather had a machine do it, so when it comes time to grapple with the tiny technical decisions (including behavior/policy decisions, thresholds, tolerances...) as part of maintenance, they keep going back to AI and discovering "oh wow, interesting, so this is how it works."
These machines also lie, like astonishingly. "Here I must come clean." In a human would be a fireable level of dishonesty.
Of all people, I would expect Edward Kmett to maneuver that situation well. But that's going to be the situation, no matter who you are. That's the value proposition of AI-coding. If you go back after you've told the thing to think for you and do all of that work yourself in the form of thinking, plus catching the lies, you're obviously not recouping the expense of using the thing. It's only recouped when you delegate to it a level of trust and learn to say "I don't know, the AI wrote this part".
To anyone reading this, you must understand how u/krenoten's initial response comes across. It sounds like, "You think this technology sucks, but such-and-such genius used it one fine time so you're basically saying he sucks." He actually used the phrase "leaders continue to lead" and got as of this writing 5 upvotes. I hope I go the rest of my life and never unironically say anything like that.
Sure, I was arguing from authority too. What do you think I was trying to argue? I was trying to say, and am now repeating explicitly: You can have your own opinions, make general claims, and the existence of a single outlier does not necessarily refute them, that already a fallacy. I don't know if there's a name for it but it's like when people point at Oprah Winfrey in response to claims of structural racism. Since there was already the fallacy, I figured, let me tell this guy that I'm very familiar with the work of the leader in question; I already admire and respect his work (pre-AI, mind you; I have no opinion about THC) and nevertheless have my perspective. Invoking his name is not going to work on me.
I didn't want to get sucked into the black hole of a discussion but man, the "leaders continue to lead" triggered the fuck out of me.
4
u/Fedor_Doc 1d ago
Part of me wants to agree with you. AI assisted coding is good for narrow private usecases, when there is no time to do something better and more interesting from programming perspective, and it does not provide learning experience to the user. From this perspective, boasting about building a new "agentic harness" makes no sense â an author did not check other options, did not learn anything, and cannot explain what happens in the code. This does not provide anything interesting to the community.
On the other hand, good programmers use AI. Kernel maintainers use AI. Curl developers use AI.
It is impossible to say that their contributions are worthless and provide nothing of interest to the community.
From my experience of using AI for internal tools, it is impossible to make good software with it if you do not know software engineering. You have to make tons of decisions, steer the model, and you can never just trust its description of the code at face value. You have to invest time, read and edit actual code, be sceptical, and constantly learn â or the project becomes a nightmare.Â
So, if you have to internalise project to develop and maintain it, even if you use AI, does it mean that you have nothing to share with the community? I think there is a legitimate border here.
-1
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
I believe there's a difference between "AI-assisted human-coded" and "AI-coded" that's being ignored here.
2
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
Massive statement. What is this based on? Is this opinion or fact? Huge population to make a statement on so you must be well-versed in the topic of this. Moreover if the label of AI disinterests you then isnt it a silly statement to say whats in the box is 100% uninteresting? I mean how could you know
0
u/sjshuck 1d ago
Massive statement.
Not really
What is this based on?
Feels
Is this opinion or fact?
I used the word "uninteresting". I'll leave it to you to figure out whether that's an opinion-based thing or fact-based thing.
isnt it a silly statement to say whats in the box is 100% uninteresting? I mean how could you know
Stop stealing my pickup lines
3
u/TheOneExpert 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hard agree.
I care a lot about the âuninterestingâ part in particular. I donât think thereâs any point in doing anything unless you make it interesting, unique from other stuff, âweirdâ. This applies to code as much as it applies to more traditional art.
Gen AI is a tool that has the clear purpose of replicating things that are already out there. Making shallow copies of things that exist. I think it fundamentally and completely goes against everything that I enjoy in a piece of art, a game, a product.
Everything that comes out of one of these models is plain boring. And it gets more boring the better trained the model is, the closer it gets to perfectly immitating things.
I donât give a crap about the quality of one of these models, however you even define that. For me theyâre something that should be completely banned from any self-respecting community. I find it borderline offensive that in a community dedicated to a programming language there is space made for people that use these tools.
If they only used them for research, as âfancyâ search engines, I guess itâs whatever. I donât do that personally and donât approve of it, but I donât find it offensive either.
I know there will be a bunch of people replying to this with a bunch of arguments trying to state that âtheyâre a tool, it depends how you use itâ. Iâm not going to bother engaging. Iâve wasted enough of my time fighting nonsense, the patterns should be clear by now for anyone willing to see them.
This is just my opinion of course.
0
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm reasonably confident that's a majority opinion on this sub.
0
u/sjshuck 1d ago
I've heard that in general about the community but I have my doubts. I think a more common opinion is "AI can be good or bad, let's be discerning about it rather than extreme one way or the other."
Like, I don't distinguish between slop and what u/emilypii refers to as "good AI".
3
u/effectfully 8h ago
I have AI dig through GHC Core, STG, Cmm and Assembly for me to help me optimize my code. A vague question along the lines of "what's up with this?" sends Sol on a quest of trying different GHC versions, pinpointing the exact commit where compiler behavior changed etc.
I try and learn things I would never be able to try and learn without AI, because it wouldn't be a good time investment. What would take me days if not weeks, AI does in a few hours without any supervision.
That's for safety-critical software.
If you believe there's no good use for AI w.r.t. coding, you're legitimately incompetent (this isn't me being dismissive or insulting, it's a fact).
2
u/philh 7h ago
this isn't me being dismissive or insulting, it's a fact
To be clear, if you wrote just this last paragraph, I'd be calling you out for rule 7. I think it's just about okay in the context of the rest of the comment, so I'm not taking any mod action or anything. (I'd prefer "wrong" instead of "incompetent". It's less insulting/dismissive, and IMO it's more accurate.) But I wanted to leave this note.
0
u/sjshuck 6h ago edited 6h ago
Well, it's no wonder this sub is half slop code. You are explicitly of the opinion as a mod that we who are wholesale against code gen AI are wrong, and those who call us "factually incompetent" don't deserve a rules citation. You're hoping that any given slop post will be a "good" one.
Please consider hardening your position wrt AI code generation. I would like to see this sub do well.
4
u/philh 5h ago
I gotta balance between "let people criticize other people" and "have the sub be a pleasant place to be". As part of that, criticisms that are substantive and backed-up are broadly allowed (whether I agree with them or not), and criticisms that are basically just insulting someone out of nowhere are not (whether I agree with the insult or not), and I decided the above was just about on the "okay" side of things.
we who are wholesale against code gen AI are wrong
Not what I said? You're once again replacing words with similar words that mean a different thing.
1
u/sjshuck 7h ago
I type things into search engines knowing full well that AI powers them. I also follow up on the "sources" listed after the blurbs, as I'm sure you do a lot of follow-up and verification in what you're describing. Note that the topic is AI-sloppers. I don't distinguish between good AI-generated code or bad AI-generated code. I think it all leads to the same cul-de-sac, having the long-term effects of 1) requiring AI forever in maintenance and 2) retarding the learning of whomever's doing the prompting. You may disagree.
But suppose for argument's sake that I am of the opinion that one shouldn't use AI for anything, even investigation. You say
you're legitimately incompetent (this isn't me being dismissive or insulting, it's a fact)
Did I really hurt your feelings? I'm sorry, I don't know what else to tell youâI have a wholesale distrust of AI coding, no matter who's doing it or how great their previous achievements. All that extra stuff is coming from you.
1
u/effectfully 52m ago
I did preface my statement with "If you believe there's no good use for AI w.r.t. coding", so if you don't believe that (which given your "for argument's sake" seems to be the case), then the rest of the statement doesn't apply to you.
> I have a wholesale distrust of AI coding
The distrust is well-earned. Doesn't mean AI can't be the right tool for the job.
> having the long-term effects of 1) requiring AI forever in maintenance and 2) retarding the learning of whomever's doing the prompting. You may disagree.
I mostly agree with both the points, if you apply them to a single project. But I work on several and not every one of them needs to be maintenable or provide me with learning opportunities. Whatever time I save by slopping out low-cost-of-failure shit is the time I can spend doing the important things properly.
2
u/sjshuck 48m ago
Thanks for the response. I disagree with the "throwaway scripts" argument, and actually think there are big problems with AI even for investigation, but at least you're not aiming the professional competence judgment gun at me for the moment so maybe we can quit now while we're both ahead.
1
u/effectfully 39m ago
Funny comment, thank you.
> you're not aiming the professional competence judgment gun at me for the moment
I didn't change any of my statements, so I never was aiming that gun at you then.
> actually think there are big problems with AI even for investigation
I'd actually be curious to hear about those, because I've been doing it A LOT (as in, agents prompting other agents, agents performing handoffs etc, and trust me I wouldn't be doing any of this miserable shit if it didn't pay off). AI has been doing wonders for me in this regard. So much so I can't even get into the specifics of it.
1
u/sjshuck 28m ago
I also do AI stuffâin fact I'm one of two authors at my company of a bundle of MCP servers distributed internally as a curated AI UX. Respectfully however I don't want to continue. It's fundamentally disagreeable to me to say "if you don't think this technology is useful, you're incompetent". Douglas Crockford said syntax highlighting is childish and useless but he didn't call me incompetent for using it, nor would I call him incompetent for thinking it's useless. I would ask you to rethink your relationship to others in your profession.
1
u/effectfully 6m ago
Fair enough.
> Douglas Crockford said syntax highlighting is childish and useless
That's a clear subjective opinion. AI having legitimate use cases is a fact.
-1
-3
u/AustinVelonaut 1d ago
I agree. The problem I see with LLM-generated code is that it now looks reasonable on the surface, but if you dig into it, you find problems / mistakes / inefficiencies that tend to be ones that a human doesn't usually make. So it is very hard to tell at first glance whether code is "slop" or not. Also, it seems that the number of people who carefully review their LLM-generated code is the vast minority, so it would be nice to have an "LLM-generated" tag to prevent me wasting my time on it.
2
u/Worldly_Dish_48 9h ago edited 8h ago
I donât know why this community is so anti-AI
4
u/effectfully 8h ago
Because people here care about quality and AI slop is generally low quality. Unfortunately, people here are also not as smart as they think they are, so they don't realize that quality isn't always a priority and that AI can be used to improve quality.
4
u/Worldly_Dish_48 7h ago
Agree. Haskellers love to gatekeep stuff to feel the superiority complex. Reality is AI is here to stay and we cannot stop slop by completely blocking AI, rather embracing and improving it
1
u/vshabanov 6h ago
I agree that AI-generated code/packages must be tagged. Maybe not with a brutal "AI SLOP" label, but something like "100% AI", "50% AI", or "Contains AI".
It's better to find out upfront and just skip the project than to start digging into and discover the massive slop.
Yet the project could still be interesting and provide insights, so an outright ban on AI would be an overkill and go against the future.
1
u/GardenerAether 1h ago
like i have to ask honestly, how on earth do people here manage to rationalize their wilfull use of AI with that participation's contribution to the monsterous effects its having on the world and society
0
u/haskell_jedi 1d ago
LLM-assisted coding is here to stay and in many legitimate ways better than what came before. You can dislike projects implemented using coding assistants, but it's not something that should be disallowe here.
10
u/cdsmith 1d ago
There is a big difference between "LLM-assisted" and "vibe coding". I think it's quite logical to say that if you had an LLM implement something in Haskell, but didn't really engage with Haskell code at all, there's no point in announcing it in r/haskell. The fact that it was written in Haskell really doesn't have major consequences in that case, so it's not really on topic here. That's a very different situation from, say, something written in Haskell by a human being using an AI auto-complete tool like the original GitHub Copilot, which wrote little snippets of code, a few lines at most, that the programmer read and understood and either accepted or not based on whether it was what that programmer intended to say.
My main concern with a rule is that enforcement would tend to be by witch hunt. I've seen an increasing number of communities become hostile and precarious because some members take it upon themselves to guess at who else is using AI, and launch campaigns to ostracize them. I'd hate for that to happen here.
5
u/effectfully 8h ago
God forbid someone uses Haskell to implement a project that isn't an effect system.
I've been a pro Haskeller for 10+ years. I have an entirely vibe-coded project in Haskell (safety doesn't matter there and neither does getting wrong results occasionally). I'm interested in how other people approach this kind of thing. I could see myself asking my clanker to analyze that project and tell me what their clanker got wrong, what anti-patterns I should be wary of and guard against in my own sea of slop, etc.
There's like 3 posts a day on average here. What are you trying to optimize?
3
1
u/sjshuck 1d ago
Can you give an example of a community that has had a witch hunt? To the point of someone who didn't AI-code getting ostracized on the false belief that they AI-coded.
8
u/cdsmith 1d ago
The best examples I can come up with are from board games, writing, and art. I know people who do digital art as their profession, and the general consensus for beginners in that field is that they'd better have iron-clad proof that they aren't using AI, because otherwise a single accusation can get a new artist blocked from online communities and spawn movements coordinated over social media to destroy that artist's career.
Granted, at least the writing and art communities have a lot stronger reasons to oppose the use of AI: arguably, the thing people are looking for in engaging with art and writing is engaging with the person who created it, supporting their self-expression and the feelings and emotions they poured into their work. Board games is a little weirder, but much of the board game creation community is dominated by artists, and the sentiment spills over. I have personally received pretty ugly messages from self-appointed AI police because of old blog post about my use of genetic algorithms to optimize the set of tiles in a board game I'm publishing.
1
u/sjshuck 1d ago
I didn't know about these dynamics but I can imagine now. Thanks for describing.
I confess to having been self-appointed AI police on a different platform. The person defended himself and I ended up kind of crashing out and leaving the platform, which was probably for the best anyway. The thing is, I still don't know if it was AI or just heavy slop of the non-AI variety. In any case, I was not proud of any of that, and probably would react differently now, though still retaining my basic perspective.
We are all trying to negotiate what the protocol is, coming from one or another angle. Which is OP's topic, after all.
1
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
That's only relevant if the sub's purpose is to "check out how cool these Haskell projects are", which I feel it never was.
1
u/jeffstyr 1d ago
That's a very important point.
If "check out this thing I wrote" posts are only a small percentage of posts anyway, then it doesn't much matter even if they were all low-value.
1
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
We are seeing it completely dominate some programming subs and that's why this is an emergent concern.
-2
u/TrainsareFascinating 1d ago
Why is that the most important thing? How about a âno one without a Masters in CSâ coded? Or âno one from country Xâ or âno one who went to <3rd tier school>â?
I think the only rational metric is quality, and use of AI is not a quality indicator. So mostly such labels are simply epithets used to denigrate the project without any real critique.
4
u/arybczak 1d ago
A rational, level headed take which gets down voted. Never change, Reddit, never change.
0
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
It depends on our goals and the level of AI assistance. If the purpose of posting is to share and discuss technical or theoretical matters for learning purposes, vibe coded projects are noise. If the goal is to promote Haskell as a programming language that differentiates itself by offering certain guarantees to humans, then vibe coded projects are noise. If the purpose is to enrich the ecosystem, it can be problematic and should be flagged. If the purpose is to promote Haskell projects just for the sake of being written in Haskell, then it's fine. Etcetera.
6
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
Can you help me understand why all of them could be labeled as noise in that respect?
If someone wanted to haskell only channel by handwritten code I think thats fair and actually a great idea but as for how the overall haskell subreddit works I dont think its great to overconstrain on one groups preferences. I myself would greatly enjoy interacting with two different channels for ai+haskell and haskell without AI. The discussions are wildly different and both really insightful.
To be honest too, at this point so much of the world uses AI so wouldnt it be better to attract those people to haskell? Sure a handwritten haskell lib beats the quality of a claude written one but a vibe coded haskell project is better than a vibe coded JS project. That vibe coded haskell project could mean haskell jobs down the line. Call me crazy but i think even handwritten haskell jobs down the line where quality becomes an engineering investment. And thats happening, theres an insane amount of new startups hiring for their brokenish vibe coded React project. Itd be pretty cool if that was in haskell
0
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
When I say vibe coded I mean code the user didn't write. If the goals are those I stated, discussing programs the user didn't write wastes everyone's time. If we decide that this sub has different goals, then there's no problem.
Can I ask what in your view is the value of attracting more people to Haskell?
3
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
I just wish I learned haskell before I learned python and dont wish that pain on othersđ¤Ł.
But also who wouldnt want there to be more haskell jobs? People have no idea how many startups are being created with AI and haskell gets none of those startups despite Haskell being a huge plus to their quality. I say this as someone who runs hiring processes for engineering companies and sees so many founders at events saying "yeah i coded an app with AI assistance and got X investment". Ive already done entire projects where the whole premise is migrate the clients vibe coded go project to haskell.
Its also just honestly a position of inexperience with AI to try and say that using AI automatically makes it garbage. No, low effort and low knowledge of haskell makes the project crap whether or not AI is involved. There are researchers who Ive talked to that their entire focus is using Lean with LLMs. And if youre using AI with haskell and its output is garbage then sorry but thats a skill issue. That means you can improve at prompting AKA improve your knowledge of haskell and perhaps context engineering. Its much harder to become useful with AI + haskell than to just to learn haskell, and im not saying Haskell isnt hard Im just saying you need to be able to mentally corroborate human linguistic intent with probability with determinism with how to define a strong data transformation pipeline / view AI as a stream editor that can write its own stream editors. And even then you need to be able to just move mentally faster on architectural thinking or even still it will become low quality, not cuz of the AI but because youre playing second fiddle to the AI leader.
I say all that to say what is the big deal of a low quality project being shared? Like they existed before AI, are they just now being shared rapidly? I havent been paying much close attention but Ive seen maybe one low quality slop coded project here so far. I personally am gonna audit any project I use and maybe this skill has been honed by interacting with AI projects but its pretty quick 5 minutes to check code quality to disqualify using it.
1
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago edited 1d ago
But also who wouldnt want there to be more haskell jobs? ...
I can't see how that has anything to do with discussing a tag or ban on vibe coded projects shared on a sub.
Its also just honestly a position of inexperience with AI to try and say that using AI automatically makes it garbage. ...
I didn't make that claim. That's not what's being discussed.
I say all that to say what is the big deal of a low quality project being shared? ...
Again, if we agree that sharing Haskell projects for the sake of being written in Haskell is one of the purposes of this sub, there's no problem. Again, I don't feel that's the case.
2
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
Wdym? Yes of course it doesnt have anything to do with that but you asked me about the value of attracting more people to haskell.
I did go on a tangent so let me reel it in by restating it simply: who cares and even if you do care, why? This whole haskell anti AI movement has been such a witch hunt and I find that to be way more of a waste of time then someone posting a project. I dont get it. In a one week span theres been maybe 1 post of a vibe coded project in r/haskell tell me how this witch hunt is saving anyone time by removing 1 post per week. And honestly good for that poster, they might be more junior idk idc if they were to post the worst vibe coded slop my view is Id rather see that then just less posts in r/haskell.
0
u/hopingforabetterpast 1d ago
You asked me to clarify my "vibecode as noise" claim, which I think I did. Now you're asking "who cares and why?". This comment section answers the "who" part pretty clearly and I'm not sure how much clearer you want it to get wrt the "why".
2
u/_lazyLambda 1d ago
I think you think im fighting you or something. I dont know you so i dont have any beef with you. Perhaps youre taking my frustration to mean im arguing with you. But yeah i know the who, its been pretty clear but yeah as for why no its honestly not and im sick of pretending theres any legitimate reason
1
u/hopingforabetterpast 23h ago
Sorry if my tone came across as harsh, it wasn't the intention. I was trying to understand and answer your questions but maybe you're just venting and I should drop it.
→ More replies (0)
19
u/philh 1d ago
What I've been trying to enforce in practice is
Unfortunately there's no reliable way for me to judge either of those.