Aaargh, I hate it when useful terms get diffused to meaninglessness. No, there’s one kind of vibe coding. The definition of vibe coding is letting the LLM write the code and not looking at it. That’s what the word “vibe” is there for.
I think I've seen people use the "vibe engineering" to differentiate whether the human has viewed/comprehended/approved the code, but I am not sure if that's taken off.
Maybe, “dingus coding”?
I think that when you say this, you have an obligation to explain how the term "vibe coding" is useful, and is only useful by the definition that you've become attached to.
I think that the author is accepting that there's no such thing as the vibe coding that you've defined (except for very short and very simple scripts), and that in all other cases of "vibe coding" there will be a back and forth between you and the machine where you decide whether what it has done has satisfied your requirements. Then they arbitrarily distinguish between two levels of doing that: one where you never let the LLM out of the yard, and the other where you let the LLM run around the neighborhood until it gets tired and comes back.
I think that's a useful distinction, and I think that the blog makes a good case for it being a useful distinction. I don't find your comment useful, or the strictness of definition that it demands. It's unrealistic. Nobody is asking an LLM to do something, and shipping whatever it brings back without any follow-up. If nobody is doing that, a term restricted to only that is useless.
References: This is the original definition ("forget that the code even exists"). [0] Simon Willison wrote a much longer version of my comment. [1] He also suggested the term "vibe engineering" for the case where you are reviewing the LLM output. [2]
[0] https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383
https://github.com/buttplugio/buttplug
https://github.com/Gankra/cargo-mommy (has integration with the former)