Recent Posts1
OutpostHD / Re: Introducing myself.
« Last post by Hooman on October 04, 2026, 05:28:30 AM »Reading the first post I found myself thinking Leeor is not going to be a fan of AI generated content. Not too surprised by his response.
For code changes, I would be uncomfortable with vibe coded submission. I have a very strong preference for small change sets that are easy to understand and review. That tends to exclude a lot of vibe coded output. A lot of AI generated code can be overly verbose, sometimes unnecessarily complicated, and of highly variable quality. Combine that with how quickly AI tools can produce a large quantity of code, and it creates a situation where proper review can become very difficult. I'm generally of the opinion that code submissions should be well understood by the person submitting them, and should be readily understood by a reviewer. Mostly I want conditions where review is easy and quality can be maintained.
To be clear, my objection here isn't really about using AI tools for a research and learning phase, or a prototype phase. My concerns are more about quality and understandability when it comes time to present and review code.
There was someone who vibe coded some prototype UI upgrades. I would say that effort was appreciated. People did go over the visual changes to comment on them, and note which changes would be good improvements to make.
Those vibe coded UI upgrades were never formally submitted for inclusion. The person who made the UI changes left a link to his fork for anyone curious, though there was never a detailed review, nor was a PR opened for the changes. The focus was more on the general ideas for UI updates being presented, rather than on the code.
Given your stated background, I'm guessing you'd be more interested in code submissions. We do certainly like quality code submissions, and are generally happy to work with people that want to give it a try, or learn something new.
For code changes, I would be uncomfortable with vibe coded submission. I have a very strong preference for small change sets that are easy to understand and review. That tends to exclude a lot of vibe coded output. A lot of AI generated code can be overly verbose, sometimes unnecessarily complicated, and of highly variable quality. Combine that with how quickly AI tools can produce a large quantity of code, and it creates a situation where proper review can become very difficult. I'm generally of the opinion that code submissions should be well understood by the person submitting them, and should be readily understood by a reviewer. Mostly I want conditions where review is easy and quality can be maintained.
To be clear, my objection here isn't really about using AI tools for a research and learning phase, or a prototype phase. My concerns are more about quality and understandability when it comes time to present and review code.
There was someone who vibe coded some prototype UI upgrades. I would say that effort was appreciated. People did go over the visual changes to comment on them, and note which changes would be good improvements to make.
Those vibe coded UI upgrades were never formally submitted for inclusion. The person who made the UI changes left a link to his fork for anyone curious, though there was never a detailed review, nor was a PR opened for the changes. The focus was more on the general ideas for UI updates being presented, rather than on the code.
Given your stated background, I'm guessing you'd be more interested in code submissions. We do certainly like quality code submissions, and are generally happy to work with people that want to give it a try, or learn something new.
