Lol I find the opposite to be cringe to be honest: people using chatgpt to write messages, emails, resumes for them, professional software developers vibe coding entire apps, talking about AGI coming from LLMs. Please. That is the cringe.
Let's say an NGO has done the work to formally specify a software product that would improve outcomes or people reached by I dunno 30%. They send out RFPs to a number of consultancies who provide a quote and guaranteed delivery meeting their specifications by the desired date. Only one fits in the budget, and by quite a margin. It's a consultancy that openly "vibe codes".
Should they hire them?
Yes the specification is holding a lot of weight here. Assume it's comprehensive and all consultancies offer the same aftercare support. Otherwise we're just handwaving and bike shedding over something that's not measurable.
Perhaps the ever changing definition of vibe coding is the issue here. I'm referring to heavily AI assisted development. I'm not referring to a lack of planning, reviewing, and testing.
> If we're going to have AI overlords, it'd be great if they spoke with proper grammar.
People like blurring the lines and lots of people want AIs to bang out keystrokes in an order that is roughly human-like, so here we are. (Personally, I would love if Claude said "honestly" or "real" or "landed" less. Or pretty much never! I've tried banning the words. I've tried providing a list of alternatives, and I'm enjoying nothing like Great Success.)
On the topic of "correct usage", until maybe ~3 years ago I had a pretty bog-standard understanding of what dictionaries do. They are authorities, right? Or at least experts in correct usage? That all changed when I read "Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language." in "Disputing Definitions" by Yudkowsky : https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
See also: "Finding the forgotten creators of the Oxford English Dictionary" on 1A, WAMU 88.5, March 26, 2026:
If you are serious, I'm not quite sure how to infer what your definition of cringe is. I have no shame... I even checked urban dictionary.
Re: LW: yeah, you nailed the stereotype. I've probably said something similar myself (this is not a compliment). I'll bet many people on HN could find many interesting & useful discussions there. Here are some more takes with my commentary.
1. "LW has such a insider set of lingo and ideas and tenets". True imo, but these aren't hidden: they are easy to find.
2. The LessWrong "canon" is often weird and/or useless. I can confirm the feeling. Each new weird idea takes time to weigh. Take Newcomb's Paradox. Why the obsession with it? Until it clicks, it feels like you've walked into some kind of die-hard tabletop gaming session. So most normal people find ways to leave. Don't. Stay. What better do you have to? I'm seriously asking. If it matters, go do that instead. But if you have free time, you could do worse. How often do you really get your brain challenged?
3. The articles are too long. Yep, sometimes they are. One needs to like reading. A lot. So people with short attention spans might have trouble. This is my top criticism.
4. Intellectual depth and openness is off the charts. I put LW at the "best I've seen anywhere online, ever" level. Not the kind of permanent openness to anything. Openness to new ideas is a great starting posture. But the goal is to be able to get somewhere with them. As a particular idea loses plausibility, don't expect it to get much airtime. Bad ideas don't deserve as much consideration until/unless something changes to prompt a reconsideration.
