The trick is that you have to be a good coder to get the most out of "vibe" coding. It works great for me, but I deploy all of the knowledge I've acquired over the decades as a professional developer. You need to know how to architect systems, what data structures and algorithms to ask for, how to design a product, many facets of graphic and user interface design, how to parcel out work, how to parallelize tasks. Even which ideas are worth pursuing is an intuition you build up over years. "Vibe" coding really is magic and I'm highly scaled, but I don't see how it could possibly work for all but the most senior developers. In some sense, it's like writing LISP macros on steroids.
Completely agreed. I’ve got about 20 years of professional software development experience. Tools like Claude Code let me build incredibly quickly when I use a stack I know intimately.
But when I try it with a stack I don’t know, I quickly find myself needing to learn the new stack to get anything done.
Extremely experienced engineers will be able to move quickly with these tools, but specialization will still exist, and I’m not clear on how juniors are going to ramp up on all of this.
It’s funny you should mention LISP macros. Five years ago, I’d have told you that the most efficient way to build something is to get an extremely experienced dev with mastery over a flexible language like LISP, and just let them go nuts. I constantly have to hold myself back from metaprogramming tricks because my coworkers won’t be able to maintain it. But on my personal projects, I really get to flex my muscles.
It occurred to me a few months ago that that’s exactly the same spot in my toolbox where Claude Code is. It’s a tool that allows one person with mastery of a tech stack to build things incredibly quickly. Look at Cursor where a tiny team has over $100M in annualized revenue.
Big companies often find themselves spreading ownership across too many hands. You know exactly how to build what you need, but you’re not allowed to touch 80% of the code involved because it belongs to a different team. But coordinating all of that is a massive amount of overhead that will derail most projects. This is why so little happens at big companies.
But these tools enable a smaller number of experts to do a job that used to take many. I expect the speed improvements to be super-linear as a result.
Of course, that brings concerns about what happens to the employment situation for devs if that happens. I hope it means that 10,000 new startups can build more ambitious products and absorb all the people who will probably be laid off by the huge corps in the next few years.
But is it really vibe coding if you’re carefully building step by step and checking everything along the way? I feel like the kind of vibe coding people usually mean is more about blindly iterating until things work and patching bugs as they pop up—where you eventually get an app that runs, but it’s so messy that even a senior dev would struggle to audit or fully understand it.
The truth is I don't check everything along the way! That's part of my high scale, I can now work on a dozen projects instead of a couple because I'm freed up from having to read all of the code. A huge shift in mindset for sure, but it's been working great.
I 100% agree that this is how the experience is right now.
I don't necessarily think it will stay this way, though. The tools are so new, we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully.
Isn't it a subset of "understanding".. AI as we have them currently emulates something that understands us. If you ask it to write a program, how would a non-coder know if the output of the emulated understanding is accurate enough as code, or a miss?
Reminds me of the joke:
int getRandom() {
return 4; // chosen by a dice, guaranteed to be random
}
Even with humans, it’s very common to ask them for something and get something back that’s completely different than what you wanted. Short of reading your mind, AI is going to require a lot of info to get the desired result.
So someone is going to have to gather requirements and break them down into a clear, well thought out set of instructions for the computer. That’s literally what programmers already do. We’re just programming in a different language now.
In the past, we depended on editors that were easy to switch. Now coders are becoming dependent on tools that are hard to switch off.
And I’ve realized that even when I try to stay in control, I often don’t read the output code—I just copy and paste.
Metaphorically, it’s like pilots who know how to use the autopilot, but can’t switch back to manual control. That’s the generation of coders we’re raising.
Since you are only willing to go for 1:1 odds with a 3 year timeframe, I assume you are in agreement that it might happen? Otherwise I’m sure you would give him better odds with a larger timeframe :)
Reality is often disappointing. The reality is that this is sold to people who don't know how to code as a way to code. Even if the theory is that an engineer can make the best use of it (whether or not it helps is another debate).
I was able to teach my interns more about architectural designs instead of coding. Teaching them more about DDD instead of going through what’s broken with this function. We might be close to a point where you can teach product people about these basic concepts, packages and saas tools, and have them vibe code a whole app.
“You need to know…” do you need to know though? I agree I need to know the things to work in a mature codebase or make something maintainable in the long run but to bang out a get rich quick project? Probably not.
What you're describing is not vibe coding. I realize some people call anything with an LLM generating code "vibe coding" but it's not and I'm going to die on this hill.
1 it's not the meaning Karpathy used originally, which was for creating software through prompts WITHOUT looking at the source code
2 it's not the meaning people outside programming circles mean, either, which is identical to Karpathy's original definition
the title of the article is talking about 2 and is completely correct.
YOU, on the other hand, are talking about an upgrade to IntelliSense. Use a different term. You're describing regular programming, with a new IDE tool.
If it's not going to replace programmers and allow regular people to create software without looking at the code, it's not vibe coding. Full stop.
Amen. The difference is vast when it comes to discussions like this.
If you’re talking about AI-assisted development, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is a fantastic win. The developer can pick up the remaining 20% and come out massively ahead.
If you’re talking about vibe-coding, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is useless. What’s a non-developer going to do with something that still has 20% of the development left to do? It’s not 80% useful, it’s 0% useful.
It really depends what you're coding. I'm a former PM who can't code, and I'm currently using GPT-5 in Cursor to write an internal application for my business of acquiring and operating e-commerce brands that sell on Amazon. I'm really vibe coding (just clicking accept without ever reading any of the code changes), and it's working great! I've got a whole dashboard that's retrieving inventory and sales data from multiple Amazon stores, projecting future sales and reorder point, etc. The code might be total dogshit, but it's incredibly useful for me (and also really enjoyable).
That said I might be sort of a weird case, since I am accustomed to designing and documenting product requirements, the fact that it's just for me means architecture doesn't really matter, and I'm competent enough to help it resolve some design problems like the fact that it was obviously hitting the wrong Amazon API that was pulling a report of every single sale as a line item rather than just a report with total sales numbers, etc.
I think this is spot on and aligns with my experience.
I've seen less experienced devs crash and burn trying to commit massive amounts of vibe coded slop without consideration to: how much of it was necessary? how does it conform with our code base / style? how much does it take advantage of existing code and patterns? and so on.
I think if you are using one of these tools and experienced, it should be difficult to tell you are using one at all. The code I produce looks like stuff I would write, and I understand all it wrote, I don't want to outsource to producing tons of code that I don't even understand.
This has been my experience. I only have 12 years under my belt, but I've had a lot of good results using Claude Code/Cursor agent since this May. You have to know what questions to ask, how to mold the requirements with the agent, what to tell it to do. I treat it like an employee I'm pairing with. My productivity is at a new level.
Absolutely. It's augmentation not automation, it does what I want or it gets the hose again.
You make the framework and it colours in the lines. If you don't draw the pattern first you're going to get a kindergarten mess. There are times I'm amazed by its suggestions but it will also cheat and "lie" and if you're not paying attention, you'll miss it.
But these days many tasks for me consist of: I need this, look how I did it here before, and follow this exact pattern through to the end and write tests, too. And the results are usually exactly what I would have done. Because it is an excellent mimic. But if I hadn't put the work into the framework, it would be awful.
It’ll cheat a lot when writing unit tests. Particularly “agentic” tools like cursor. It’ll get a test to pass, even if it’s against a laughably incorrect implementation.
I’ve ended up with tests called stuff like “foobar successfully returns impossible value that suggests programmer error” lmao
My favorite thing Claude code has been doing recently is adding second totally separate implementation of whatever I asked it to write tests for, and writing the tests against that.
Conveniently, when it then changes the original implementation, the tests don’t fail!
> at first i was very hopeful i can finally 'build' now with my minimal tech skills
This is the problem. If you couldn't have coded it slowly in the old world, you will have problems coding it in AI world.
However if you have a lot of coding experience, you can now compress the time it would have taken you be an enormous amount. My experience is that I can now make extensive changes with very little effort, and very few dead ends. I've been able to take on entire secondary projects where I was just replication existing knowledge with slightly different tools.
Just this week I had a litmus test. I had an existing database that I'm pushing huge amount of data to. I decided to try a different underlying database. This would have taken me a full week of looking at documentation and writing supporting scripts, now I've done it in the spare time I had in two days of my actual work.
And it's not like the AI just did it all unsupervised. It threatened to do down the wrong path a few times, but each time I spotted it and steered it the way I wanted. I also asked it a few questions about curiosities I discovered in the emitted code, and that led to fixes as well.
If I didn't know how to code before, I would still be coding this alternative database.
Assuming the current way to become senior is the only way?
I could still see a select few being given a foot in the door and leaping over the "argh why doesn't it compile" stage, past the "argh, I need a whole new architecture" stage to become senior in a few years. Every cohort has a few unicorns.
Alternatively, coding goes the way of the calculator. By that I mean, the people that used to be part of the engineering team, doing arithmetic. You just hire domain experts and give them the AI hoping the domain expertise is all you need to get you through the day.
Finance has historically had a lot of people who thought they could code, now perhaps they will get better. Big risk of it becoming a mess larger than back when they got VBA.
I don't see "senior vibe coder" going in any way that doesn't end in constant forest fires that they try to put out with a flamethrower. This happens even with seasoned engineers. Unicorn hunting for the exceptions will be every bit as infeasible in 2045 as it was in 2005.
> You just hire domain experts and give them the AI hoping the domain expertise is all you need to get you through the day.
what domain experts? Clearly they are trying to replace everyone with AI. That's the unsettling part of the whole story; this phenomenon is happening across many sectors who want to try and skimp out on talent.
Idk I honestly feel like it makes junior developers more valuable. Junior are devs are often a cost as make as an asset, cause they take a lot of time and attention away from senior devs.
Now a junior can ask an AI like 90% of questions that would otherwise occupy a senior:
- Why does this dockerfile copy these files first?
- how can I find the entrypoints to this service?
- is there anything related to image processing in this entire project?
LLMs let juniors punch above their weight, and it lets seniors go faster. Of course if everybody is twice as efficient, you don’t need as many devs (debatable), but I don’t think junior devs are going anywhere. I hear a lot of CEO hype posts saying junior devs are outdated, but idk it doesn’t make any sense to me!
1) that the tools become more Socratic and interactive and educational and walk the engineer through what they're doing
2) juniors pair with a senior who is using the tool and see the process and the decisions being made.
I know the industry wants these things to replace us, but in fact it's more like a power drill than a spinning jenny. It augments and lets the existing craftsmen work better faster, but does not replace / automate really.
>I know the industry wants these things to replace us
sadly, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". It will correct itself long term, but the damage over the last few years will linger for years, maybe even decades to come.
I have about 6 months of actual coding knowledge via bootcamp. But I’ve seen enough repos that I know what good practices look like.
That’s about enough for me to build out fairly complex products very fast with AI (Claude Code). Claude Code often makes some fundamental mistakes that you wouldn’t be able to catch if you didn’t have any coding experience (like today, it was trying to save large images directly in the database instead of using file storage).
> But I’ve seen enough repos that I know what good practices look like.
This is the danger - I get why you think it's true, but it's not true. I've mentored many many bootcamp grads. The biggest danger with y'all is you don't know what you don't know.
Even if you are a really good bootcamp grad and you have good taste and ability, you do not have experience. Software experience is measured really in years and decades, not months.
I agree. But I’m not making enterprise software - I’m making fun little apps where people can virtually try on clothes. As long as I keep my customers data secure (which I do), I think its okay to vibe code this stuff away.
> However if you have a lot of coding experience, you can now compress the time it would have taken you be an enormous amount. My experience is that I can now make extensive changes with very little effort, and very few dead ends. I've been able to take on entire secondary projects where I was just replication existing knowledge with slightly different tools.
This has not been my experience and it is very frustrating. I've been programming almost 20 years, I'm pretty good at it
I don't know where the disconnect is, but no matter how I try (and I am trying, I don't want to get left behind) I cannot get remotely good results from LLM coding tools
They always, always, always take longer to build what I want than just doing it myself
Same. I mostly just don't believe people when they say they get good results. Or i guess, i think my definition of "good results" must be very different than other people's.
My manager uses cursor and Claude for everything. I can always tell. He pretends like he wrote it himself even, but he obviously didn't. I end up rewriting big chunks of it, or finding all sorts of baffling quirks during review.
Idk, I'm just not at all willing to settle for "good enough," which means Claude doesn't really save me any time. If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right.
It's a good rubber duck, and it's good for scaffolding new projects (arguably), and it's good at converting code from one language to another or for generating a one-off bash script or something. That's about all i can get out of it.
Translating to new libraries or languages is the one thing i see ai providing a substantial benefit. Of course once you get the new project started, the initial bump in efficiency rapidly goes to zero. That’s still valuable, but man is it overhyped.
I have been so discouraged by the way that web3 crypto hucksters pounced on vibe-coding.
I truly enjoy programming with AI, it is my favorite hobby by a mile. I'm also happy to say that, for now, I get to capture some of the productivity increase for myself while my employer catches up to how effective it is.
It is sad that there is no space to discuss these new techniques that isn't full of opportunists and clout chasers.
I was at a coffee shop a little while ago with some friends and a stranger was sitting near us working on his laptop. Someone from our group decided to strike up a conversation with him and the stranger started telling us about how now they have these AI tools that can have you make an app in a few hours and without knowing how to code. He was not a software person but look at what he is able to do with it. The implication was that he has an idea and was going to make it a reality as quickly as possible using whatever AI tools he was using.
I am not sure what the moral of the story is but it reminds me a bit of that parable about the investor getting his shoes shined and the shoe shine kid giving him investment advice.
Partially I think the idea of an app being so valuable that it makes money without being connected to anything is just not really a thing. Some games (Flappy Bird anyone?) can be like that or some very specific type of lifestyle app, but for the most part you need a real world service connected or it will not be seen as valuable. But perhaps I am wrong.
Was he pushing the money making angle? Because from the description you gave my impression was that he was empowered to make things, and I see nothing wrong with that.
From what I gather he was “doing very important business things”. Like I said, I don’t know if the moral here is that everyday people now have access to technology that before required massive investment in learning programming so we should expect amazing things or if the moral of the story is that a ton of people are going to get scammed or if it is that we are going to see the same thing happen to our industry as what happened to journalism when social media became a thing.
To be fair, we are currently drowning in a mountain of AI-written blogspam that makes using most popular search engines nearly impossible to find basic information. And honestly I am sure the app stores are full of apps that nobody wants and nobody uses because who needs another calculator or alarm clock app?
You won't find me arguing that AI can't dramatically speed up the process of a bad writer writing dreck, or somewhat speed up the process of a good writer writing something worth reading.
A bunch of Tesla drivers think they have an autonomous driving car, too. Doesn't make it reality. My brother thinks he's going to make "an AI agent" to discern bias in news when he himself has the information literacy of an ignorant ipad baby.
I met a homeless person that is attempting to dig their way out through vibe coding via empty promises from video marketers telling them they can make $10k a month passive income. This shit is really abusive. I didn't know what to say to her, because she was gripping onto it like her one hope.
I think there is one thing that most people miss, obviously!
=> You can use AI to double-check (not single check), avoid overengineering, fill knowledge gaps, scan for inconsistencies and many more things. The main benefit it has for me is not that it codes me stuff real fast. It is that my learning curve improved, drastically, whenever I have a missunderstanding. I dive down and test it. Sometimes AI is wrong and I have to go to docs, sometimes docs are wrong and I have to test and I have to open a issue.
If you combine AI capabilities with debugging skills and testing you have a lot of power as developer nowadays. Its a lot of fun.
To me it seems like most things tend to develop to: It’s more fair. If you are lazy and try to do a shorcut you’ll be punished with wasted time and a lot of frustration. If you try to do thing conscientiousnessly and take ownership for the code you push, publish and run. You’ll learn faster, improve faster, ship faster and have way less headache.
"If you combine AI capabilities with debugging skills and testing you have a lot of power as developer nowadays" - precisely. As a tool for learning and expanding existing capabilities - it's phenomenal. I've not found anything this compelling for exploring areas that are new to me, and for getting a 1000ft view of a tech landscape (or almost any endeavour). Does that mean it gets it entirely correct? Hell no, but neither does a web browsing spelunking session aggregation random opinions from reddit and stack exchange.
If you want to outsource your skill and thinking - that's never going to go particularly well.
It almost seems like a test for impulse control - those who can restrain themselves from taking shortcuts with it can gain tremendous capabilities.
AI can let you build crappier code more quickly. I find this useful for throwaway code and unit tests. But more importantly, it lets me write better code with a significant but small time penalty. I can try multiple approaches, do experiments, bounce ideas off the AI, et cetera.
Not all coding is interesting, I would say the majority of it is a chore.
One shotting small utilities that I have no interest in writing (for me, front-end JS, chrome extensions, web scraping selectors) is wonderful. I just vibe coded a "crop a pdf" web UI and it worked with no intervention. It doesn't have to be meaningful, just useful.
Yeah, it's very convenient to ask an LLM to generate e.g. a "Hello World" browser extension and then to gradually fill it with logic. Searching for tutorials gets you outdated resources, poorly written ones and obscure failures.
Then again, I asked ChatGPT moons ago to generate a Filebeat config file, and its output contained syntax errors...
Actually, I think hand-coders will still be around in future generations. There are still people who hand sew, weave baskets, and blacksmith. You will still have people who code by hand.
Coding is at the stage of maturing from commodity to a craft. This generation will pass it on to the next generation, and so on.
As with all crafts, there will be a great demand for quality craftsmanship. And it will command a much higher price than whatever comes out of the factory.
I generally foresee most AI generated things becoming worthless. It’s basic supply and demand. When copycats and crop up overnight in droves, whats the differentiator? The value goes way down.
I believe that winning differentiator will be quality. Uniqueness. A level of craftsmanship that an LLM can’t copy without knowing the secret sauce.
> at first i was very hopeful i can finally 'build' now with my minimal tech skills
You can. You just can't do it fast.
You need to build up your tech skills first. But AI platforms are not incentivized to help you do that. So you have to be very controlled about the speed at which you code.
I learned that letting the AI drive implementation wasn't working for me. The speed is intoxicating at first, and you start trusting the output blindly. But eventually you have to face the music and fix up the mess.
So now I just use it as a glorified autocorrect and search engine, as well as a rubber duck (Ask mode in Cursor). This speed works for me. You have to find the speed that works for you.
To me, vibe coding is all about "make something that kinda works, quickly, to test and play and create." It shouldn't replace the specifics of a design, a functional specification, or the thought process that creates a final product.
Perhaps that's obvious to others, but it felt worth saying from my perspective. If vibe coding tools are touting themselves as a key to easy wealth, shame on the product and marketing teams creating the messaging.
Vibe coding tools are helping non-tech users build prototype faster, and there's nothing wrong about that. The only thing that goes wrong are the "marketing" folks with a poisoned mindset. I've seen a lovable's tiktok clip said something like "She doesn't know she gonna sell her app for 20k" lol.
I made a strategic choice to focus on ‘vibe coding’ rather than using platforms like n8n, aiming to pick up something new with each project I build. From familiarity with terminal, github, heroku + postgres, etc.
I'm still vibe coding in terms of syntax and logic, but I do understand my codebase, and have made some excellent automations at work.
But to be fair, this technology is still at an early stage, and we don't know it's limits.
It's scary to imagine a future where the development process in companies is fully handled by AI agents, which are the only ones who can read and maintain the code.
- "Vibe coding" is a state of action and being, a mental design paradigm for how you approach a problem.
- Generative/LLM based coding is the technology used to enable vibe coding.
I'm not going to fully dismiss the latter because I can't predict the future, and if we're being frank: no one "cares" about the underlying code when you launch a product. Only that it works. Art/Design is king.
Vibe Coding will inevitably fail once you try to scale to make bigger projects or reason with harder problems. Engineering is about understanding a problem space and figuring out a solution to it with the tools/techniques you acquire and derive; black boxing that aspect of engineering will only take you so far.
Everyone non-technical I know who vibe coded either ran into a bug they couldn't fix or abandoned their project.
I would love to see Lovable.dev's financials, I think they're running the classic low retention, high marketing dollar consumer playbook and are burning cash fast. Base44 seems to do the same thing after getting acquired by Wix, I'm seeing more and more of their ads.
As someone technical, vibe coding makes me feel disconnected from my product and feel like I don't know what's going on. I eventually just need to dive back into the code and find many things I need to change myself.
There sadly isn't much in the ways of masterclasses and apprenticeships these days that target established professionals, sadly. In any job sector. The userbase of trying to get started in XYZ will always be a larger, more vulnerable one to target. Even if you're honestly trying to educate the masses it only makes sense to focus on beginners first. Experts will eventually find their way, and the intermediate is this nebulous field that few even know how to target.
I'm sure some do. But I can't imagine something like Kiro(not an endorsement) would market itself with vibe coding, since its whole point is methodical spec driven development.
I'm glad there's vibe coding available to non-tech founders so they can build the equivalent of high-fidelity prototypes. May not be MVP worthy yet, but at least it gets them started.
In reality what it will more likely result in is for them to get a false feeling of competence and they'll start to think that they don't need those tech folks anymore, even more than they already do.
They'll put even less value in the people doing the implementation and double down on them being the person with the vision and that's what makes them so great.
Vibe code is gamified software engineering, similar to what Robinhood did with stock investing - gamified it with zero trades, instant feedback, and a fancy UI.
I sit on a few indie hacker rooms with folks that slurped up the vibe coding koolaid immediately and they've been posting about their 100x output for over a year now - but none of them have shipped anything remotely successful - so I think at least anecdotally I somewhat agree.
I also just overall haven't seen a huge influx of new and useful apps and websites as you'd expect based on how tech leaders are talking about the virtues of these new tools.
I don't think AI has really found it's niche yet, and I think it's going to be much subtler than most people think, it's going to be the tools that integrate features like translations and summarization and speech to text in ways that are seamless that end up sticking - all of this other noise is just marketing hype.
I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that the hard/expensive part about running an app based business is rarely writing the app.
Most web developers can clone twitter in a day, even before LLMs. I've seen it assigned as homework for bootcamp devs (not knocking bootcamp devs, just pointing out that it isn't a tall ask even for a junior. Most apps aren't hard to code to an MVP.
The hard part about an app based business is the business part. Marketing, billing, and getting actual revenue and customers is much harder than writing code.
As some other people here have put it in previous discussions about claims from AI companies, if they really believed what they were saying about replacing developers, they wouldn't be hiring.
LLM coding, if done right, is an extremely involved process, perhaps more involved than coding it yourself. The professional result is that the code can be produced with significantly higher quality than if I were to code it myself.
It takes significant human effort to thoroughly understand, define, and refine specifications to recursively satisfy all important feedback from multiple LLMs. Only then can the coding begin, and the actual coding then takes just a couple of minutes. Following this, the code has to be thoroughly reviewed, perhaps also slightly refactored. Lastly, sometimes some follow-up issues have to be created to improve the feature further before it is shippable.
As with anything else, the quality of the result is proportional to the level of effort you put in.
I wonder if Twitter is already filled with "hard-working all umerican" paid-influencers claiming Indians are so low-IQ/smelly etc. that they can't even use AI to do the jobs that they got through race/religion/caste/smell/skin-color/language/etc.-based nepotism.
They Duk-a-duk!
(South Park is awesome isn't it ?)
Vibe coding is fine. It can make junior coders work like a team of junior coders, and senior coders work like they have a team. All the problems associated with having a team of juniors you didn't vet, can't trust, and must always review come with it... but that's an economic trade off. The value is real.
I have no idea how it's marketed - if it's as a replacement for developers then yeah it's BS.
I regularly use Claude code (and Claude) to write code for
- throwaways data processing or visualization
- connecting to an API I have some documentation for
- demoing some concept
I think it's great for data science and product stuff, and on those merits will be a multi-billion dollar industry. I would never let it near a real codebase.
One should be simply amazed that amidst the AI hype most fail to realise that if it's too good to be true, it probably is! Just waiting for this bubble to pop.
The greater scam here is that rugged individualism can lead to positive societal outcomes.
Just more free market capitalism, bro! We just need more freedom for the tech bros, the finance bros, bro!
This AI shit is yet another oh look - increase in rugged individual 'productivity' is going to lead to positive societal outcomes, trust me, bro!
It's all bullshit but what else have the western retarded elite got? Or non-western elites for that matter? USA is USSR 2.0 - falling apart from the retarded short-sighted incompetence and selfishness of its sociopathic 'elites'. China will be USSR 3.0 in a generation or two.
It's all so terribly tedious, boring and cruel - the monumental amounts of wasted opportunity and resources because everyone's too busy being 'productive' to ever spend a decade or two to actually think through anything and come up with potential real solutions to real problems. The average 'elite' doesn't even know what the real problems are or how to begin finding out what they might be - they probably think it's climate change or more likely - how to make sure they retain their billions. Oh well, so it goes.
what a roller coaster. i was with you mostly until the end of your rant. climate change is a real problem; one, in fact, that many of the elites you speak of are actively working to exacerbate for short-term gain. that felt kinda out of left field for someone who's essentially espousing leftwing ideology, which more or less entirely embraces climate change as a major concern.
The trick is that you have to be a good coder to get the most out of "vibe" coding. It works great for me, but I deploy all of the knowledge I've acquired over the decades as a professional developer. You need to know how to architect systems, what data structures and algorithms to ask for, how to design a product, many facets of graphic and user interface design, how to parcel out work, how to parallelize tasks. Even which ideas are worth pursuing is an intuition you build up over years. "Vibe" coding really is magic and I'm highly scaled, but I don't see how it could possibly work for all but the most senior developers. In some sense, it's like writing LISP macros on steroids.
Completely agreed. I’ve got about 20 years of professional software development experience. Tools like Claude Code let me build incredibly quickly when I use a stack I know intimately.
But when I try it with a stack I don’t know, I quickly find myself needing to learn the new stack to get anything done.
Extremely experienced engineers will be able to move quickly with these tools, but specialization will still exist, and I’m not clear on how juniors are going to ramp up on all of this.
It’s funny you should mention LISP macros. Five years ago, I’d have told you that the most efficient way to build something is to get an extremely experienced dev with mastery over a flexible language like LISP, and just let them go nuts. I constantly have to hold myself back from metaprogramming tricks because my coworkers won’t be able to maintain it. But on my personal projects, I really get to flex my muscles.
It occurred to me a few months ago that that’s exactly the same spot in my toolbox where Claude Code is. It’s a tool that allows one person with mastery of a tech stack to build things incredibly quickly. Look at Cursor where a tiny team has over $100M in annualized revenue.
Big companies often find themselves spreading ownership across too many hands. You know exactly how to build what you need, but you’re not allowed to touch 80% of the code involved because it belongs to a different team. But coordinating all of that is a massive amount of overhead that will derail most projects. This is why so little happens at big companies.
But these tools enable a smaller number of experts to do a job that used to take many. I expect the speed improvements to be super-linear as a result.
Of course, that brings concerns about what happens to the employment situation for devs if that happens. I hope it means that 10,000 new startups can build more ambitious products and absorb all the people who will probably be laid off by the huge corps in the next few years.
But is it really vibe coding if you’re carefully building step by step and checking everything along the way? I feel like the kind of vibe coding people usually mean is more about blindly iterating until things work and patching bugs as they pop up—where you eventually get an app that runs, but it’s so messy that even a senior dev would struggle to audit or fully understand it.
The truth is I don't check everything along the way! That's part of my high scale, I can now work on a dozen projects instead of a couple because I'm freed up from having to read all of the code. A huge shift in mindset for sure, but it's been working great.
I 100% agree that this is how the experience is right now.
I don't necessarily think it will stay this way, though. The tools are so new, we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully.
Isn't it a subset of "understanding".. AI as we have them currently emulates something that understands us. If you ask it to write a program, how would a non-coder know if the output of the emulated understanding is accurate enough as code, or a miss?
Reminds me of the joke:
int getRandom() {
>how would a non-coder know if the output if the emulated understanding is accurate
QA for non-AI code is limited at best to begin with, why would AI code be any different?
> Reminds me of the joke
Source: https://xkcd.com/221/
I disagree, at least for the next 5 years or so.
Even with humans, it’s very common to ask them for something and get something back that’s completely different than what you wanted. Short of reading your mind, AI is going to require a lot of info to get the desired result.
So someone is going to have to gather requirements and break them down into a clear, well thought out set of instructions for the computer. That’s literally what programmers already do. We’re just programming in a different language now.
In the past, we depended on editors that were easy to switch. Now coders are becoming dependent on tools that are hard to switch off.
And I’ve realized that even when I try to stay in control, I often don’t read the output code—I just copy and paste.
Metaphorically, it’s like pilots who know how to use the autopilot, but can’t switch back to manual control. That’s the generation of coders we’re raising.
> we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully
Care to put some money behind this fantastical claim, in a bet?
Sure, if you granted me odds commiserate with my statement that "you can't be so sure", meaning I would get like 99-1 odds.
I wasn't saying it will certainly reach the point where non-coders can code, I am saying we can't be certain it won't just because it can't yet
1:1 odds, but i'll give you a huge (tech-wise) time horizon of, say, 3 years?
Ha, no I am thinking more like 10-20 years, or maybe even longer. But I know from experience that 10-20 years goes by faster than you think.
Since you are only willing to go for 1:1 odds with a 3 year timeframe, I assume you are in agreement that it might happen? Otherwise I’m sure you would give him better odds with a larger timeframe :)
Reality is often disappointing. The reality is that this is sold to people who don't know how to code as a way to code. Even if the theory is that an engineer can make the best use of it (whether or not it helps is another debate).
I was able to teach my interns more about architectural designs instead of coding. Teaching them more about DDD instead of going through what’s broken with this function. We might be close to a point where you can teach product people about these basic concepts, packages and saas tools, and have them vibe code a whole app.
“You need to know…” do you need to know though? I agree I need to know the things to work in a mature codebase or make something maintainable in the long run but to bang out a get rich quick project? Probably not.
What you're describing is not vibe coding. I realize some people call anything with an LLM generating code "vibe coding" but it's not and I'm going to die on this hill.
1 it's not the meaning Karpathy used originally, which was for creating software through prompts WITHOUT looking at the source code
2 it's not the meaning people outside programming circles mean, either, which is identical to Karpathy's original definition
the title of the article is talking about 2 and is completely correct.
YOU, on the other hand, are talking about an upgrade to IntelliSense. Use a different term. You're describing regular programming, with a new IDE tool.
If it's not going to replace programmers and allow regular people to create software without looking at the code, it's not vibe coding. Full stop.
Amen. The difference is vast when it comes to discussions like this.
If you’re talking about AI-assisted development, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is a fantastic win. The developer can pick up the remaining 20% and come out massively ahead.
If you’re talking about vibe-coding, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is useless. What’s a non-developer going to do with something that still has 20% of the development left to do? It’s not 80% useful, it’s 0% useful.
It really depends what you're coding. I'm a former PM who can't code, and I'm currently using GPT-5 in Cursor to write an internal application for my business of acquiring and operating e-commerce brands that sell on Amazon. I'm really vibe coding (just clicking accept without ever reading any of the code changes), and it's working great! I've got a whole dashboard that's retrieving inventory and sales data from multiple Amazon stores, projecting future sales and reorder point, etc. The code might be total dogshit, but it's incredibly useful for me (and also really enjoyable).
That said I might be sort of a weird case, since I am accustomed to designing and documenting product requirements, the fact that it's just for me means architecture doesn't really matter, and I'm competent enough to help it resolve some design problems like the fact that it was obviously hitting the wrong Amazon API that was pulling a report of every single sale as a line item rather than just a report with total sales numbers, etc.
Vibe coding helps people “bring their own UI”
I think this is spot on and aligns with my experience.
I've seen less experienced devs crash and burn trying to commit massive amounts of vibe coded slop without consideration to: how much of it was necessary? how does it conform with our code base / style? how much does it take advantage of existing code and patterns? and so on.
I think if you are using one of these tools and experienced, it should be difficult to tell you are using one at all. The code I produce looks like stuff I would write, and I understand all it wrote, I don't want to outsource to producing tons of code that I don't even understand.
This has been my experience. I only have 12 years under my belt, but I've had a lot of good results using Claude Code/Cursor agent since this May. You have to know what questions to ask, how to mold the requirements with the agent, what to tell it to do. I treat it like an employee I'm pairing with. My productivity is at a new level.
Absolutely. It's augmentation not automation, it does what I want or it gets the hose again.
You make the framework and it colours in the lines. If you don't draw the pattern first you're going to get a kindergarten mess. There are times I'm amazed by its suggestions but it will also cheat and "lie" and if you're not paying attention, you'll miss it.
But these days many tasks for me consist of: I need this, look how I did it here before, and follow this exact pattern through to the end and write tests, too. And the results are usually exactly what I would have done. Because it is an excellent mimic. But if I hadn't put the work into the framework, it would be awful.
It’ll cheat a lot when writing unit tests. Particularly “agentic” tools like cursor. It’ll get a test to pass, even if it’s against a laughably incorrect implementation.
I’ve ended up with tests called stuff like “foobar successfully returns impossible value that suggests programmer error” lmao
My favorite thing Claude code has been doing recently is adding second totally separate implementation of whatever I asked it to write tests for, and writing the tests against that.
Conveniently, when it then changes the original implementation, the tests don’t fail!
This is just about the only type of test i see it write lol
Yeah, or "bug was pre-existing and not my fault so shrug, here's a TODO and we'll just say it passed" (not those exact words, but close)
“70% of tests pass. This codebase is ready for production!”
> at first i was very hopeful i can finally 'build' now with my minimal tech skills
This is the problem. If you couldn't have coded it slowly in the old world, you will have problems coding it in AI world.
However if you have a lot of coding experience, you can now compress the time it would have taken you be an enormous amount. My experience is that I can now make extensive changes with very little effort, and very few dead ends. I've been able to take on entire secondary projects where I was just replication existing knowledge with slightly different tools.
Just this week I had a litmus test. I had an existing database that I'm pushing huge amount of data to. I decided to try a different underlying database. This would have taken me a full week of looking at documentation and writing supporting scripts, now I've done it in the spare time I had in two days of my actual work.
And it's not like the AI just did it all unsupervised. It threatened to do down the wrong path a few times, but each time I spotted it and steered it the way I wanted. I also asked it a few questions about curiosities I discovered in the emitted code, and that led to fixes as well.
If I didn't know how to code before, I would still be coding this alternative database.
This will be a big problem in the future if it means more companies choosing not to hire/train juniors.
Eventually all the experienced people will be dead or retired.
Assuming the current way to become senior is the only way?
I could still see a select few being given a foot in the door and leaping over the "argh why doesn't it compile" stage, past the "argh, I need a whole new architecture" stage to become senior in a few years. Every cohort has a few unicorns.
Alternatively, coding goes the way of the calculator. By that I mean, the people that used to be part of the engineering team, doing arithmetic. You just hire domain experts and give them the AI hoping the domain expertise is all you need to get you through the day.
Finance has historically had a lot of people who thought they could code, now perhaps they will get better. Big risk of it becoming a mess larger than back when they got VBA.
I don't see "senior vibe coder" going in any way that doesn't end in constant forest fires that they try to put out with a flamethrower. This happens even with seasoned engineers. Unicorn hunting for the exceptions will be every bit as infeasible in 2045 as it was in 2005.
> You just hire domain experts and give them the AI hoping the domain expertise is all you need to get you through the day.
what domain experts? Clearly they are trying to replace everyone with AI. That's the unsettling part of the whole story; this phenomenon is happening across many sectors who want to try and skimp out on talent.
Idk I honestly feel like it makes junior developers more valuable. Junior are devs are often a cost as make as an asset, cause they take a lot of time and attention away from senior devs.
Now a junior can ask an AI like 90% of questions that would otherwise occupy a senior:
- Why does this dockerfile copy these files first? - how can I find the entrypoints to this service? - is there anything related to image processing in this entire project?
LLMs let juniors punch above their weight, and it lets seniors go faster. Of course if everybody is twice as efficient, you don’t need as many devs (debatable), but I don’t think junior devs are going anywhere. I hear a lot of CEO hype posts saying junior devs are outdated, but idk it doesn’t make any sense to me!
>Now a junior can ask an AI like 90% of questions that would otherwise occupy a senior:
And how does a Junior in this kind of work gain the skills that transitions them to senior?
>I hear a lot of CEO hype posts saying junior devs are outdated, but idk it doesn’t make any sense to me!
well yes, they aren't making sense. Hence why I think this is all a bubble. Irrational markets and all that.
I don't know when it will burst, but even tech companis can't reject reality forever.
> And how does a Junior in this kind of work gain the skills that transitions them to senior?
Um - by asking AI 90% of the time, and the senior 10% of the time. If anything, the senior can now mentor 10x the number of juniors.
The answer here is two-fold --
1) that the tools become more Socratic and interactive and educational and walk the engineer through what they're doing
2) juniors pair with a senior who is using the tool and see the process and the decisions being made.
I know the industry wants these things to replace us, but in fact it's more like a power drill than a spinning jenny. It augments and lets the existing craftsmen work better faster, but does not replace / automate really.
>I know the industry wants these things to replace us
sadly, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". It will correct itself long term, but the damage over the last few years will linger for years, maybe even decades to come.
I have about 6 months of actual coding knowledge via bootcamp. But I’ve seen enough repos that I know what good practices look like.
That’s about enough for me to build out fairly complex products very fast with AI (Claude Code). Claude Code often makes some fundamental mistakes that you wouldn’t be able to catch if you didn’t have any coding experience (like today, it was trying to save large images directly in the database instead of using file storage).
> But I’ve seen enough repos that I know what good practices look like.
This is the danger - I get why you think it's true, but it's not true. I've mentored many many bootcamp grads. The biggest danger with y'all is you don't know what you don't know.
Even if you are a really good bootcamp grad and you have good taste and ability, you do not have experience. Software experience is measured really in years and decades, not months.
I agree. But I’m not making enterprise software - I’m making fun little apps where people can virtually try on clothes. As long as I keep my customers data secure (which I do), I think its okay to vibe code this stuff away.
> However if you have a lot of coding experience, you can now compress the time it would have taken you be an enormous amount. My experience is that I can now make extensive changes with very little effort, and very few dead ends. I've been able to take on entire secondary projects where I was just replication existing knowledge with slightly different tools.
This has not been my experience and it is very frustrating. I've been programming almost 20 years, I'm pretty good at it
I don't know where the disconnect is, but no matter how I try (and I am trying, I don't want to get left behind) I cannot get remotely good results from LLM coding tools
They always, always, always take longer to build what I want than just doing it myself
Same. I mostly just don't believe people when they say they get good results. Or i guess, i think my definition of "good results" must be very different than other people's.
My manager uses cursor and Claude for everything. I can always tell. He pretends like he wrote it himself even, but he obviously didn't. I end up rewriting big chunks of it, or finding all sorts of baffling quirks during review.
Idk, I'm just not at all willing to settle for "good enough," which means Claude doesn't really save me any time. If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right.
It's a good rubber duck, and it's good for scaffolding new projects (arguably), and it's good at converting code from one language to another or for generating a one-off bash script or something. That's about all i can get out of it.
My biggest beef is that I feel like settling for "good enough" is a one way ticket to vulnerability town
"Good enough" often has AWS keys embedded into the code itself, stupid things like that
I hold myself to a higher standard
Translating to new libraries or languages is the one thing i see ai providing a substantial benefit. Of course once you get the new project started, the initial bump in efficiency rapidly goes to zero. That’s still valuable, but man is it overhyped.
I have been so discouraged by the way that web3 crypto hucksters pounced on vibe-coding.
I truly enjoy programming with AI, it is my favorite hobby by a mile. I'm also happy to say that, for now, I get to capture some of the productivity increase for myself while my employer catches up to how effective it is.
It is sad that there is no space to discuss these new techniques that isn't full of opportunists and clout chasers.
I was at a coffee shop a little while ago with some friends and a stranger was sitting near us working on his laptop. Someone from our group decided to strike up a conversation with him and the stranger started telling us about how now they have these AI tools that can have you make an app in a few hours and without knowing how to code. He was not a software person but look at what he is able to do with it. The implication was that he has an idea and was going to make it a reality as quickly as possible using whatever AI tools he was using.
I am not sure what the moral of the story is but it reminds me a bit of that parable about the investor getting his shoes shined and the shoe shine kid giving him investment advice.
Partially I think the idea of an app being so valuable that it makes money without being connected to anything is just not really a thing. Some games (Flappy Bird anyone?) can be like that or some very specific type of lifestyle app, but for the most part you need a real world service connected or it will not be seen as valuable. But perhaps I am wrong.
Was he pushing the money making angle? Because from the description you gave my impression was that he was empowered to make things, and I see nothing wrong with that.
From what I gather he was “doing very important business things”. Like I said, I don’t know if the moral here is that everyday people now have access to technology that before required massive investment in learning programming so we should expect amazing things or if the moral of the story is that a ton of people are going to get scammed or if it is that we are going to see the same thing happen to our industry as what happened to journalism when social media became a thing.
¿Por qué no los dos?
People say this, but you'll know it's real or not when the world will drown in a mountain of AI-authored shovelware from non-engineers.
To be fair, we are currently drowning in a mountain of AI-written blogspam that makes using most popular search engines nearly impossible to find basic information. And honestly I am sure the app stores are full of apps that nobody wants and nobody uses because who needs another calculator or alarm clock app?
You won't find me arguing that AI can't dramatically speed up the process of a bad writer writing dreck, or somewhat speed up the process of a good writer writing something worth reading.
The evidence isn't quite clear yet for software.
A bunch of Tesla drivers think they have an autonomous driving car, too. Doesn't make it reality. My brother thinks he's going to make "an AI agent" to discern bias in news when he himself has the information literacy of an ignorant ipad baby.
I met a homeless person that is attempting to dig their way out through vibe coding via empty promises from video marketers telling them they can make $10k a month passive income. This shit is really abusive. I didn't know what to say to her, because she was gripping onto it like her one hope.
Or maybe they are just allowing people to create fixes in their life and the world by writing solutions to their problems
I think there is one thing that most people miss, obviously!
=> You can use AI to double-check (not single check), avoid overengineering, fill knowledge gaps, scan for inconsistencies and many more things. The main benefit it has for me is not that it codes me stuff real fast. It is that my learning curve improved, drastically, whenever I have a missunderstanding. I dive down and test it. Sometimes AI is wrong and I have to go to docs, sometimes docs are wrong and I have to test and I have to open a issue.
If you combine AI capabilities with debugging skills and testing you have a lot of power as developer nowadays. Its a lot of fun.
To me it seems like most things tend to develop to: It’s more fair. If you are lazy and try to do a shorcut you’ll be punished with wasted time and a lot of frustration. If you try to do thing conscientiousnessly and take ownership for the code you push, publish and run. You’ll learn faster, improve faster, ship faster and have way less headache.
"If you combine AI capabilities with debugging skills and testing you have a lot of power as developer nowadays" - precisely. As a tool for learning and expanding existing capabilities - it's phenomenal. I've not found anything this compelling for exploring areas that are new to me, and for getting a 1000ft view of a tech landscape (or almost any endeavour). Does that mean it gets it entirely correct? Hell no, but neither does a web browsing spelunking session aggregation random opinions from reddit and stack exchange.
If you want to outsource your skill and thinking - that's never going to go particularly well.
It almost seems like a test for impulse control - those who can restrain themselves from taking shortcuts with it can gain tremendous capabilities.
AI can let you build crappier code more quickly. I find this useful for throwaway code and unit tests. But more importantly, it lets me write better code with a significant but small time penalty. I can try multiple approaches, do experiments, bounce ideas off the AI, et cetera.
Most people who vibe code will never make anything meaningful.
Low effort in -> low effort out
I can actually code so no point in vibing.
To vibe means to never look at the code, where is the fun in that?
Not all coding is interesting, I would say the majority of it is a chore.
One shotting small utilities that I have no interest in writing (for me, front-end JS, chrome extensions, web scraping selectors) is wonderful. I just vibe coded a "crop a pdf" web UI and it worked with no intervention. It doesn't have to be meaningful, just useful.
Yeah, it's very convenient to ask an LLM to generate e.g. a "Hello World" browser extension and then to gradually fill it with logic. Searching for tutorials gets you outdated resources, poorly written ones and obscure failures.
Then again, I asked ChatGPT moons ago to generate a Filebeat config file, and its output contained syntax errors...
Actually, I think hand-coders will still be around in future generations. There are still people who hand sew, weave baskets, and blacksmith. You will still have people who code by hand.
Coding is at the stage of maturing from commodity to a craft. This generation will pass it on to the next generation, and so on.
As with all crafts, there will be a great demand for quality craftsmanship. And it will command a much higher price than whatever comes out of the factory.
I generally foresee most AI generated things becoming worthless. It’s basic supply and demand. When copycats and crop up overnight in droves, whats the differentiator? The value goes way down.
I believe that winning differentiator will be quality. Uniqueness. A level of craftsmanship that an LLM can’t copy without knowing the secret sauce.
Your analogy doesn’t exactly work because code is more utilitarian than say a painting or sculpture
> at first i was very hopeful i can finally 'build' now with my minimal tech skills
You can. You just can't do it fast.
You need to build up your tech skills first. But AI platforms are not incentivized to help you do that. So you have to be very controlled about the speed at which you code.
I learned that letting the AI drive implementation wasn't working for me. The speed is intoxicating at first, and you start trusting the output blindly. But eventually you have to face the music and fix up the mess.
So now I just use it as a glorified autocorrect and search engine, as well as a rubber duck (Ask mode in Cursor). This speed works for me. You have to find the speed that works for you.
To me, vibe coding is all about "make something that kinda works, quickly, to test and play and create." It shouldn't replace the specifics of a design, a functional specification, or the thought process that creates a final product.
Perhaps that's obvious to others, but it felt worth saying from my perspective. If vibe coding tools are touting themselves as a key to easy wealth, shame on the product and marketing teams creating the messaging.
I’ve wasted probably the entire last week of work based on rabbit holes presented to me by Claude as viable approaches. I’ve learned my lesson.
What were you working on and what were the rabbit holes?
Vibe coding tools are helping non-tech users build prototype faster, and there's nothing wrong about that. The only thing that goes wrong are the "marketing" folks with a poisoned mindset. I've seen a lovable's tiktok clip said something like "She doesn't know she gonna sell her app for 20k" lol.
The momentum behind vibe coding is driven by an underestimation/misunderstanding of what it takes to build software.
I made a strategic choice to focus on ‘vibe coding’ rather than using platforms like n8n, aiming to pick up something new with each project I build. From familiarity with terminal, github, heroku + postgres, etc.
I'm still vibe coding in terms of syntax and logic, but I do understand my codebase, and have made some excellent automations at work.
i think a lot of social media influencers are selling a get rich quick scheme around other people's AI products.
the actual AI companies marketing hype seems to claim:
1) you can make fun non-serious toy apps
2) any day now massive productivity increases for software companies. this is different than anyone can launch a product with no software skills.
Yeah, at this point, it's certainly annoying.
But to be fair, this technology is still at an early stage, and we don't know it's limits.
It's scary to imagine a future where the development process in companies is fully handled by AI agents, which are the only ones who can read and maintain the code.
I mean, the way I see it:
- "Vibe coding" is a state of action and being, a mental design paradigm for how you approach a problem.
- Generative/LLM based coding is the technology used to enable vibe coding.
I'm not going to fully dismiss the latter because I can't predict the future, and if we're being frank: no one "cares" about the underlying code when you launch a product. Only that it works. Art/Design is king.
Vibe Coding will inevitably fail once you try to scale to make bigger projects or reason with harder problems. Engineering is about understanding a problem space and figuring out a solution to it with the tools/techniques you acquire and derive; black boxing that aspect of engineering will only take you so far.
Everyone non-technical I know who vibe coded either ran into a bug they couldn't fix or abandoned their project.
I would love to see Lovable.dev's financials, I think they're running the classic low retention, high marketing dollar consumer playbook and are burning cash fast. Base44 seems to do the same thing after getting acquired by Wix, I'm seeing more and more of their ads.
As someone technical, vibe coding makes me feel disconnected from my product and feel like I don't know what's going on. I eventually just need to dive back into the code and find many things I need to change myself.
There sadly isn't much in the ways of masterclasses and apprenticeships these days that target established professionals, sadly. In any job sector. The userbase of trying to get started in XYZ will always be a larger, more vulnerable one to target. Even if you're honestly trying to educate the masses it only makes sense to focus on beginners first. Experts will eventually find their way, and the intermediate is this nebulous field that few even know how to target.
I'm sure some do. But I can't imagine something like Kiro(not an endorsement) would market itself with vibe coding, since its whole point is methodical spec driven development.
Was it perhaps author's wishful thinking?
I'm glad there's vibe coding available to non-tech founders so they can build the equivalent of high-fidelity prototypes. May not be MVP worthy yet, but at least it gets them started.
In reality what it will more likely result in is for them to get a false feeling of competence and they'll start to think that they don't need those tech folks anymore, even more than they already do.
They'll put even less value in the people doing the implementation and double down on them being the person with the vision and that's what makes them so great.
Vibe code is gamified software engineering, similar to what Robinhood did with stock investing - gamified it with zero trades, instant feedback, and a fancy UI.
I sit on a few indie hacker rooms with folks that slurped up the vibe coding koolaid immediately and they've been posting about their 100x output for over a year now - but none of them have shipped anything remotely successful - so I think at least anecdotally I somewhat agree.
I also just overall haven't seen a huge influx of new and useful apps and websites as you'd expect based on how tech leaders are talking about the virtues of these new tools.
I don't think AI has really found it's niche yet, and I think it's going to be much subtler than most people think, it's going to be the tools that integrate features like translations and summarization and speech to text in ways that are seamless that end up sticking - all of this other noise is just marketing hype.
I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that the hard/expensive part about running an app based business is rarely writing the app.
Most web developers can clone twitter in a day, even before LLMs. I've seen it assigned as homework for bootcamp devs (not knocking bootcamp devs, just pointing out that it isn't a tall ask even for a junior. Most apps aren't hard to code to an MVP.
The hard part about an app based business is the business part. Marketing, billing, and getting actual revenue and customers is much harder than writing code.
As some other people here have put it in previous discussions about claims from AI companies, if they really believed what they were saying about replacing developers, they wouldn't be hiring.
100x of zero is still zero
LLM coding, if done right, is an extremely involved process, perhaps more involved than coding it yourself. The professional result is that the code can be produced with significantly higher quality than if I were to code it myself.
It takes significant human effort to thoroughly understand, define, and refine specifications to recursively satisfy all important feedback from multiple LLMs. Only then can the coding begin, and the actual coding then takes just a couple of minutes. Following this, the code has to be thoroughly reviewed, perhaps also slightly refactored. Lastly, sometimes some follow-up issues have to be created to improve the feature further before it is shippable.
As with anything else, the quality of the result is proportional to the level of effort you put in.
I wonder if Twitter is already filled with "hard-working all umerican" paid-influencers claiming Indians are so low-IQ/smelly etc. that they can't even use AI to do the jobs that they got through race/religion/caste/smell/skin-color/language/etc.-based nepotism.
They Duk-a-duk! (South Park is awesome isn't it ?)
This blog post is engagement farming clickbait. Not even saying he's wrong, but it is.
They don't care that they are wrong.
As is with everything that is bait/clickbait/ragebait.
Vibe coding is fine. It can make junior coders work like a team of junior coders, and senior coders work like they have a team. All the problems associated with having a team of juniors you didn't vet, can't trust, and must always review come with it... but that's an economic trade off. The value is real.
I have no idea how it's marketed - if it's as a replacement for developers then yeah it's BS.
I regularly use Claude code (and Claude) to write code for
- throwaways data processing or visualization
- connecting to an API I have some documentation for
- demoing some concept
I think it's great for data science and product stuff, and on those merits will be a multi-billion dollar industry. I would never let it near a real codebase.
…and there’s nothing wrong with that
completely off topic but i find your blog theme thoroughly refreshing.
Font crimes detected
One should be simply amazed that amidst the AI hype most fail to realise that if it's too good to be true, it probably is! Just waiting for this bubble to pop.
edit: typo
hard disagree
[dead]
Meh.
The greater scam here is that rugged individualism can lead to positive societal outcomes.
Just more free market capitalism, bro! We just need more freedom for the tech bros, the finance bros, bro!
This AI shit is yet another oh look - increase in rugged individual 'productivity' is going to lead to positive societal outcomes, trust me, bro!
It's all bullshit but what else have the western retarded elite got? Or non-western elites for that matter? USA is USSR 2.0 - falling apart from the retarded short-sighted incompetence and selfishness of its sociopathic 'elites'. China will be USSR 3.0 in a generation or two.
It's all so terribly tedious, boring and cruel - the monumental amounts of wasted opportunity and resources because everyone's too busy being 'productive' to ever spend a decade or two to actually think through anything and come up with potential real solutions to real problems. The average 'elite' doesn't even know what the real problems are or how to begin finding out what they might be - they probably think it's climate change or more likely - how to make sure they retain their billions. Oh well, so it goes.
what a roller coaster. i was with you mostly until the end of your rant. climate change is a real problem; one, in fact, that many of the elites you speak of are actively working to exacerbate for short-term gain. that felt kinda out of left field for someone who's essentially espousing leftwing ideology, which more or less entirely embraces climate change as a major concern.
I didn't read it like that.
Imagine an LLM service company making contributions to climate science.
It's the scorpion ferrying the frog across the water. No different.