Wow! I just wrote the article "Stop trivialising AI: it’s not your intern, colleague or compiler" today and shared on HN - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47274213 - but I talk about different dangers though. Enjoyed reading your viewpoint.

> You can argue that you can just ask the LLM to explain back and forth but it can still be too much.

But then you'd get an explanation tailored to your specific perspective instead of a generic one, right?

> But then you'd get an explanation tailored to your specific perspective

Assuming you know how to ask the right questions and make sense of it. Tailored to whose perspective, especially in a team, which then might make it worse.

What do we gain by maintaining a high level view instead of asking an LLM to explain the code at a high level when required?

It captures the why and what of the system from a business or user perspective. Existing code don't inherently capture the original business problem or design choices that led to that code.

Fair enough! Business and user perspectives are meta-data that explain the intent behind the code. I disagree with the point that intent should be the source of truth, though. Intent, like you explained, is high level and lacks the details to be an unambiguous source of truth.

Thank you! I just changed the knob control gesture/drag logic and it doesn't work like a vertical slider anymore.

Made the knob controls more intuitive now. Please check it out!

Thanks for the feedback! Click and scroll up/down to turn the knobs. I will fix this as it isn't an intuitive way to control knobs. EDIT: Done! Please disregard this comment.

Works very well now, but initially I was confused by why it was getting stuck occasionally. Turns out you can't move it between 4'o clock and 8'o clock, which is reasonable, but there is no visual indication of these limits, so it is hard to understand.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree there needs to be visual indication for the knobs' min and max points. I'm thinking about how to do this without adding visual clutter.

Exactly! LLMs' (or any Gen-AI) lack of lived-experience/emotions is their Achilles heel. The best human creators understand how to inspire emotions mainly because they can feel it themselves. Most other humans, despite innately understanding emotions, can't really create things that inspire emotions in others. So, Gen-AI as we know it today can't really reach a point where it deeply, personally understands and inspires emotions. Vibe discovery bridges this gap, I think.

There was a very specific purpose here - to build a web-based accelerometer game. If I were to compare this with playing, I would say this is more akin to playing with a special kind of clay that shape-shifts itself based on your instructions.

As for the LLM-generated writing - I've updated the blog post with a 'meta' section explaining how LLMs generated the post itself. I've shared the link to the specific section as a response to other comments with the same criticism - I don't want to link to the blog again here and risk looking like a spam bot.

Thank you for the honest feedback! I'll stick to writing content by hand for future blog posts.

Here you go - https://www.kikkupico.com/posts/vibe-discovery/#the-meta

The blog post was written by Claude Code, reviewed by Gemini Pro, ChatGPT 5.2 Thinking, Kimi K2 Thinking, Deepseek Deep Thinking and me. Naturally, all the LLMs failed to judge that AI-generated writing is a turn-off for most readers. I failed to judge that too.

Thank you!