this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
46 points (89.7% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
23093 readers
24 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was in a blog post on the site that's conveniently missing now.
I will ask him about it. He is active in the "Fluxer HQ".
Here is what it says in the FAQ:
I think "vibecided" is intentionally used. I remember the post I referenced talking about him using it for tasks, but then checking the code. I don't think that's technically vibe coding, but intentionally not disclosing any AI use is concerning to me.
Yes, overly specific denial is sus.
A meaningful distinction to me at least is that when I'm vibecoding a one-off personal project I don't care about, I don't even look at the code.
When I'm using LLMs on a serious project that matters, I never blanketly give it a task to write code. Debugging and investigation work is more "go do the thing" vibecody, but when it comes to actually implementing fixes or features: I'd only ever use an LLM when I already know what the code should look like. And most of the time, when I'm writing in a language that I'm not perfectly familiar with, it's writing as good as me if not better. Its a flat win case. In something like C++, I have a particular style and am very pedantic, and I know the standard very well, and so I tend to need to handhold and fix or rewrite a lot more. The vast majority of programmers who write C++ don't write like I do, and I'm willing to bet that my "like me or better" statement about languages I'm only intermediate in applies to most casual or junior C++ devs.
With that said, his diff seems to have a hell of a lot of additions. I'd be willing to bet if he's using Frontier LLMs that the vast majority of that is testing (and comments if they use claude...)
I think if someone has a hard no-AI stance, then it's probably just safe to avoid the project. Whether or not it's "vibecoding" depends a lot on their workflow and their standards.
If I need to write 10,000 lines, and I know what it should look like, and the AI produces that: I see no reason why I should waste my time typing it all out by hand. With that said, "Bot, go implement XYZ" isn't how I or most experienced devs work with AI, and that's where a lot of problems come from.
The good news is that it's mostly a self-solving problem, because those codebases become completely impossible to work in over time.
No human being can check 15 million LoC in three months.
The Internet archive has a version of the post that i believe has what you're talking about still in it. Strange that it's been edited out of that post
The section about LLM usage
The LLMephant in the roomFluxer came from about five years of work.
If you have used Fluxer and know the limits of LLMs, this should be obvious. Software this large only reaches this level of quality when a competent person keeps working on it over time. In Fluxer's case, that means years of on-and-off development, testing, reworking, and learning from real users. Most of the core product predates LLMs becoming a normal part of software development, and the architecture, data model, protocols, safety decisions, technical choices, and sense of what Fluxer should be are mine.
Many models were trained in ways I disagree with, and I dislike the direction most AI companies are taking. More recently I have preferred local open source models where they are good enough, because the tool exists either way and I use it on my own terms.
The closest way to describe it is as a second brain. When the codebase is large and the problem is subtle, it helps to have something that can sit with a crash log, a failing test, or a rough specification and help me think through where to look next. That can save time on the slow, repetitive parts of the work without changing who is responsible for the result.
The important part is that I stay in control. I decide the architecture, shape the specification, review the change, run the tests, and make sure it fits the surrounding system. If I cannot explain the change, I cannot ship it. Every change still has to preserve code quality, handle failure cases, and fit the product.
That is especially important because Fluxer is a real product with real-time delivery, media processing, billing, moderation, abuse prevention, and user safety concerns. LLMs can improve my throughput while the bar stays the same.
The clean commit history has a simpler explanation. The early work happened privately over more than three years, and I squashed it when Fluxer moved from closed development to public source. That is normal for a closed-to-open transition.
The contributor policy follows the same principle:
Contributors are welcome. As more people work on Fluxer, LLMs should become less important to day-to-day development.
With enough donations, Fluxer can offer bounties for specific work. My goal is to make Fluxer sustainable and community-developed.