Gary Marcus

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of 'vibe coding' and its implications for software engineering. The original post by Judah Diament critiques the notion that 'vibe coding' is a breakthrough, arguing that similar tools have existed for decades and that they fail under complex requirements. The reply by @rizzn dismisses the critique as 'cope' and claims expertise as a computer scientist. The subsequent reply asks for a counterexample to the critique, indicating a willingness to engage in further discussion.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The original post aims to inform and critique a technological trend, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. However, the dismissive tone in @rizzn's reply could be seen as undermining constructive dialogue.
2. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The original post provides a detailed critique, which can promote understanding of the limitations of 'vibe coding.' The request for a counterexample also encourages further discussion. However, the dismissive tone in @rizzn's reply does not promote empathy or understanding.
3. Principle 4:

   I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.

   The request for a counterexample suggests a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, but the dismissive tone in @rizzn's reply could be seen as a personal attack, which does not align with this principle. [-1]