The Most Productive Vibe Coder

The eternal gambler's fallacy of AI development! Just like poker addicts who swear they'll quit right before hitting the jackpot, developers keep throwing prompt after prompt at LLMs, convinced the next one will magically produce perfect code. "Just one more prompt and this system will work flawlessly!" Meanwhile, the technical debt chips keep stacking up, and the house (reality) always wins. The true irony? We're all sitting at this table pretending "vibe coding" with AI is somehow more sophisticated than randomly drawing cards from a deck.

The classic programmer journey: You start crafting the perfect ChatGPT prompt, explaining your complex problem in excruciating detail... and halfway through, your brain suddenly connects all the dots. Your fingers freeze. Wait. You just solved it yourself. It's like summoning a server farm worth of computing power just to mimic what your rubber duck could have done for free. The irony isn't lost on any of us who've spent 45 minutes writing a StackOverflow question only to figure it out right before hitting submit. Pro tip: Skip the AI and just keep a rubber duck on your desk. Same debugging power, zero tokens used.

Remember when we had to actually learn how to add two numbers? Now it's just OpenAI.chat("Sum of #{a} + #{b}") and call it a day. The terrifying part? This probably works better than half the arithmetic functions I've written in my 15-year career. Next they'll be asking ChatGPT to explain their own code to them during performance reviews. Evolution isn't always progress, folks.

OMG, the AUDACITY of quantum computers! While regular computers are over here living their best binary lives with clear "yes" or "no" answers like some kind of digital SAINTS, quantum computers are that one friend who responds to your party invite with "Well yes, but actually no." 🙄 Quantum superposition is LITERALLY the most dramatic thing in computing - existing in multiple states AT THE SAME TIME because picking ONE state would be too mainstream. Like, honey, just make a decision already! The rest of us have code to compile!

When you claim "Machine Learning" as your biggest strength but can't do basic arithmetic, you've basically mastered the entire field. The developer here has truly understood the core principle of ML: you don't need to know the answer, you just need to confidently adjust your prediction based on training data. Got it wrong? No problem, just update your weights and insist it's 15. Every answer is 15 now because that's what the loss function minimized to. Bonus points for the interviewer accidentally becoming the training dataset. This is gradient descent in action, folks—start with a random guess (0), get corrected (it's 15), and now every prediction converges to 15. Overfitting at its finest.

Content MACHINE LEARNING inglip.com