<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe Coding · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2512.22418/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2512.22418/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe Coding — mentioned by jruohonen</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46679284</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2512.22418:46679284</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 14:24:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Probabilistic systems do make sense at the edges Sure, and that&amp;#x27;s why I used the wording most application domains. &amp;gt; So the failure mode isn’t &amp;quot;probabilistic vs deterministic&amp;quot; per se, but where the probabilistic boundary is drawn -- and whether it’s explicit. If you take a look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.22418 it is difficult to draw any boundaries because a dice is rolled at so many stages. Unpredictability is acknowledged but unreliable probabilistic verification is done; requirements and specifications are prompted on the fly in response to unpredictable outputs; debugging is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2512.22418/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
