AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level.
I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'T let the machines write the code. Yes, they can write the code: you are a student, the code isn't hard yet. But you HAVE to write the code.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with:
> you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed.
That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ disappointed. I've never gotten satisfactory code/script result from them without a tremendous amount of pushback, "do this part again with ...", do that, don't do that.
Maybe I'm just a crank with too many preferences. But I hardly believe so. The minimum requirement should be for the code to work. It often doesn't. Feedback helps, right. But if you've got a problem where a simple, contained feedback loop isn't that easy to build, the only source of feedback is yourself. And that's when you are exposed to the stupidity of current AI models.
I came to "vibe coding" with an open mind, but I'm slowly edging in the same direction.
It is hands down good for code which is laborious or tedious to write, but once done, obviously correct or incorrect (with low effort inspection). Tests help but only if the code comes out nicely structured.
I made plenty of tools like this, a replacement REPL for MS-SQL, a caching tool in Python, a matplotlib helper. Things that I know 90% how to write anyway but don't have the time, but once in front of me, obviously correct or incorrect. NP code I suppose.
But business critical stuff is rarely like this, for me anyway. It is complex, has to deal with various subtle edge cases, be written defensively (so it fails predictably and gracefully), well structured etc. and try as I might, I can't get Claude to write stuff that's up to scratch in this department.
I'll give it instructions on how to write some specific function, it will write this code but not use it, and use something else instead. It will pepper the code with rookie mistakes like writing the same logic N times in different places instead of factoring it out. It will miss key parts of the spec and insist it did it, or tell me "Yea you are right! Let me rewrite it" and not actually fix the issue.
I also have a sense that it got a lot dumber over time. My expectations may have changed of course too, but still. I suspect even within a model, there is some variability of how much compute is used (eg how deep the beam search is) and supply/demand means this knob is continuously tuned down.
I still try to use Claude for tasks like this, but increasingly find my hit rate so low that the whole "don't write any code yet, let's build a spec" exercise is a waste of time.
I still find Claude good as a rubber duck or to discuss design or errors - a better Stack Exchange.
But you can't split your software spec into a set of SE questions then paste the code from top answers.
> Not only does an agent not have the ability to evolve a specification over a multi-week period as it builds out its lower components, it also makes decisions upfront that it later doesn’t deviate from.
That's your job.
The great thing about coding agents is that you can tell them "change of design: all API interactions need to go through a new single class that does authentication and retries and rate-limit throttling" and... they'll track down dozens or even hundreds of places that need updating and fix them all.
(And the automated test suite will help them confirm that the refactoring worked properly, because naturally you had them construct an automated test suite when they built those original features, right?)
Going back to typing all of the code yourself (my interpretation of "writing by hand") because you don't have the agent-managerial skills to tell the coding agents how to clean up the mess they made feels short-sighted to me.
There's been such a massive leap in capabilities since claude code came out, which was middle/end of 2025.
2 years ago I MAYBE used an LLM to take unstructured data and give me a json object of a specific structure. Only about 1 year ago did I start using llms for ANY type of coding and I would generally use snippets, not whole codebases. It wasn't until September when I started really leveraging the LLM for coding.
> In retrospect, it made sense. Agents write units of changes that look good in isolation. They are consistent with themselves and your prompt. But respect for the whole, there is not. Respect for structural integrity there is not. Respect even for neighboring patterns there was not.
Well yea, but you can guard against this in several ways. My way is to understand my own codebase and look at the output of the LLM.
LLMs allow me to write code faster and it also gives a lot of discoverability of programming concepts I didn't know much about. For example, it plugged in a lot of Tailwind CSS, which I've never used before. With that said, it does not absolve me from not knowing my own codebase, unless I'm (temporarily) fine with my codebase being fractured conceptually in wonky ways.
I think vibecoding is amazing for creating quick high fidelity prototypes for a green field project. You create it, you vibe code it all the way until your app is just how you want it to feel. Then you refactor it and scale it.
I'm currently looking at 4009 lines of JS/JSX combined. I'm still vibecoding my prototype. I recently looked at the codebase and saw some ready made improvements so I did them. But I think I'll start to need to actually engineer anything once I reach the 10K line mark.
> The AI had simply told me a good story. Like vibewriting a novel, the agent showed me a good couple paragraphs that sure enough made sense and were structurally and syntactically correct. Hell, it even picked up on the idiosyncrasies of the various characters. But for whatever reason, when you read the whole chapter, it’s a mess. It makes no sense in the overall context of the book and the preceding and proceeding chapters.
This is the bit I think enthusiasts need to argue doesn't apply.
Have you ever read a 200 page vibewritten novel and found it satisfying?
So why do you think a 10 kLoC vibecoded codebase will be any good engineering-wise?
Karpathy coined the term vibecoding 11 months ago (https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383). It caused quite a stir - because not only was it was a radically new concept, but fully agentic coding had only become recently possible. You've been vibe coding for two years??
May be we will have at last the AI to do literate programming. So it can properly reread and connect big chunks of code it wrote magically in isolation.
From that perspective, the AI is following the path of a experienced programmer: specs and docs maintained in parallel of the code will save your .ss in the long run.
The funniest thing I've seen GPT do was a while back when I had it try to implement ORCA (Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance). It is a human made algorithm for entities where they just use their own and N neighbours' current radii along with their velocity to calculate mathematical lines into the future, so that they can avoid walking into each other.
It came very close to success, but there were 2 or 3 big show-stopping bugs such as it forgetting to update the spatial partitioning when the entities moved, so it would work at the start but then degrade over time.
It believed and got stuck on thinking that it must be the algorithm itself that was the problem, so at some point it just stuck a generic boids solution into the middle of the rest. To make it worse, it didn't even bother to use the spatial partitioning and they were just brute force looking at their neighbours.
Had this been a real system it might have made its way into production, which makes one think about the value of the AI code out there. As it was I pointed out that bit and asked about it, at which point it admitted that it was definitely a mistake and then it removed it.
I had previously implement my own version of the algorithm and it took me quite a bit of time, but during that I built up the mental code model and understood both the problem and solution by the end. In comparison it easily implemented it 10-30x faster than I did but would never have managed to complete the project on its own. Also if I hadn't previously implemented it myself and had just tried to have it do the heavy lifting then I wouldn't have understood enough of what it was doing to overcome its issues and get the code working properly.
I think there is going to be an AI eternal summer. Both from developer to AI spec - where the AI implements to the spec to some level of quality, but then closing the gap after that is an endless chase of smaller items that don't all resolve at the same time. And from people getting frustrated with some AI implemented app, and so go off and AI implement another one, with a different set of features and failings.
Are engineers really doing vibecoding in the truest sense of the word though? Just blindly copy/pasting and iterating? Because I don't. It is more of sculpting via conversation. I start with the requirements, provide some half-baked ideas or approaches that I think may work and then ask what the LLM suggests and whether there are better ways to achieve the goals. Once we have some common ground, I ask to show the outlines of the chosen structure: the interfaces, classes, test uses. I review it, ask more questions/make design/approach changes until I have something that makes sense to me. Only then the fully fleshed coding starts and even then I move at a deliberate pace so that I can pause and think about it before moving on to the next step. It is by no means super fast for any non-trivial task but then collaborating with anyone wouldn't be.
I also like to think that I'm utilising the training done on many millions of lines of code while still using my experience/opinions to arrive at something compared to just using my fallible thinking wherein I could have missed some interesting ideas. Its like me++. Sure, it does a lot of heavy lifting but I never leave the steering wheel. I guess I'm still at the pre-agentic stage and not ready to letting go fully.
I always scaffold for AI. I write the stub classes and interfaces and mock the relations between them by hand, and then ask the agent to fill in the logic. I know that in many cases, AI might come up with a demonstrably “better” architecture than me, but the best architecture is the one that I’m comfortable with, so it’s worse even if it’s better. I need to be able to find the piece of code I’m looking for intuitively and with relative ease. The agent can go as crazy as it likes inside a single, isolated function, but I’m always paranoid about “going too far” and losing control of any flows that span multiple points in the codebase. I often discard code that is perfectly working just because it feels unwieldy and redo it.
I’m not sure if this counts as “vibe coding” per se, but I like that this mentality keeps my workday somewhat similar to how it was for decades. Finding/creating holes that the agent can fill with minimal adult supervision is a completely new routine throughout my day, but I think obsessing over maintainability will pay off, like it always has.
I don't predict ever going back to writing code by hand except in specific cases, but neither do I "vibe code" - I still maintain a very close control on the code being committed and the overall software design.
It's crazy to me nevertheless that some people can afford the luxury to completely renounce AI-assisted coding.
I never trust the opinion of a single LLM model anymore - especially for more complex projects. I have seen Claude guarantee something is correct and then immediately apologize when I feed a critical review by Codex or Gemini. And, many times, the issues are not minor but are significant critical oversights by Claude.
My habit now: always get a 2nd or 3rd opinion before assuming one LLM is correct.
I felt everything in this post quite emphatically until the “but I’m actually faster than the AI.”
Might be my skills but I can tell you right now I will not be as fast as the AI especially in new codebases or other languages or different environments even with all the debugging and hell that is AI pull request review.
I think the answer here is fast AI for things it can do on its own, and slow, composed, human in the loop AI for the bigger things to make sure it gets it right. (At least until it gets most things right through innovative orchestration and model improvement moving forward.)
I tried vibe-coding few years back and switched to "manual" mode when I realized I don't fully understand the code. No, I did read each line of code and understood it, I understood the concepts and abstractions, but I didn't understand all nuances, even those at the top of documentation of libraries LLM used.
I tried minimalist example where it totally failed few years back, and still, ChatGPT 5 produced 2 examples for "Async counter in Rust" - using Atomics and another one using tokio::sync::Mutex. I learned it was wrong then the hard way, by trying to profile high latency. To my surprise, here's quote from Tokio Mutex documentation:
Contrary to popular belief, it is ok and often preferred to use the ordinary Mutex from the standard library in asynchronous code.
The feature that the async mutex offers over the blocking mutex is the ability to keep it locked across an .await point.
As people get more comfortable with AI. I think what everyone is noticing is that AI is terrible at solving problems that don't have large amounts of readily available training data. So, basically if there isn't already an open-source solution available online, it can't do it.
If what you're doing is proprietary, or even a little bit novel. There is a really good chance that AI will screw it up. After all, how can it possibly know how to solve a problem it has never seen before?
In the long run, vb coding is going to undoubtedly rot people’s skills.if AGI is not showing up anytime soon, actually understanding what the code does,why it exists,how it breaks and who owns the fallout will matter just as much as it did before LLM agents showed up
it'll be really interesting to see in the decades to come what happens when a whole industry gets used to releasing black boxes by vb coding the hell out of it
The author also has multiple videos on his YouTube channel going over the specific issues hes had with AI that I found really interesting: https://youtube.com/@atmoio
I actually haven't come across situation 1 2 or 3 mentioned in the attached video. Generally I iterate on the code by starting a new prompt with the code provided, with enhancements, or provide the errors and it repairs the errors. Generally it gets it within 1-2 iterations. No emotions. Make sure your prompts do not contain fluff, and are straight what you want the code to accomplish and how you want it to accomplish it. I've gone back to code months later and have not had what you described as being shocked about bad code, it was quite easy to understand. Are you prompting the AI to also write variables and function names logically and utilize a common coding standard for whichever type of code you are having it write, such as wordpress coding standards or similar? Perhaps claude isn't the best, I have been experimenting with grok 4.1 thinking and grok expert at the mid-level paid tier. I'll take it a step further and adjust the code myself, start a new prompt and provide that updated code along with my further requests as well. I haven't hit the road blocks mentioned.
I'm flabbergasted why anyone would voluntarily vibe code anything. For me, software engineering is a craft. You're supposed to enjoy building it. You should want to do it yourself.
It probably depends on what you're doing, but my use case is simple straightforward code with minimal abstraction.
I have to go out of my way to get this out of llms. But with enough persuasion, they produce roughly what I would have written myself.
Otherwise they default to adding as much bloat and abstraction as possible. This appears to be the default mode of operation in the training set.
I also prefer to use it interactively. I divide the problem to chunks. I get it to write each chunk. The whole makes sense. Work with its strengths and weaknesses rather than against them.
For interactive use I have found smaller models to be better than bigger models. First of all because they are much faster. And second because, my philosophy now is to use the smallest model that does the job. Everything else by definition is unnecessarily slow and expensive!
But there is a qualitative difference at a certain level of speed, where something goes from not interactive to interactive. Then you can actually stay in flow, and then you can actually stay consciously engaged.
My high school computer lab instructor would tell me when I was frustrated that my code was misbehaving, "It's doing exactly what you're telling it to do".
Once I mastered the finite number of operations and behaviors, I knew how to tell "it" what to do and it would work. The only thing different about vibe coding is the scale of operations and behaviors. It is doing exactly what you're telling it to do. And also expectations need to be aligned. Don't think you can hand over architecture and design to the LLM; that's still your job. The gain is, the LLM will deal with the proper syntax, api calls, etc. and work as a reserach tool on steroids if you also (from another mentor later in life) ask good questions.
I still cannot make AI do anything with quality higher than the function level. I've been using it a lot to write some more complex functions and SQL with a quality level that I find good, but anything higher order and it's a complete clusterfuck. Cannot comprehend this world where people say they are building entire companies and whole products with it.
I never really got onto "vibe coding". I treat AI as a better auto-complete that has stack overflow knowledge.
I am writing a game in Monogame, I am not primarily a game dev or a c sharp dev. I find AI is fantastic here for "Set up a configuration class for this project that maps key bindings" and have it handle the boiler plate and smaller configuration. Its great at give me an A start implementation for this graph. But when it becomes x -> y -> z without larger contexts and evolutions it falls flat. I still need creativity. I just don't worry too much about boiler plate, utility methods, and figuring out specifics of wiring a framework together.
It'd be easy to simply say "skill issue" and dismiss this, but I think it's interesting to look at the possible outcomes here:
Option 1: The cost/benefit delta of agentic engineering never improves past net-zero, and bespoke hand-written code stays as valuable as ever.
Option 2: The cost/benefit becomes net positive, and economics of scale forever tie the cost of code production directly to the cost of inference tokens.
Given that many are saying option #2 is already upon us, I'm gonna keep challenging myself to engineer a way past the hurdles I run into with agent-oriented programming.
The deeper I get, the more articles like this feel like the modern equivalent of saying "internet connections are too slow to do real work" or "computers are too expensive to be useful for regular people".
Interacting with LLMs like Copilot has been most interesting for me when I treat it like a rubber duck.
I will have a conversation with the agent. I will present it with a context, an observed behavior, and a question... often tinged with frustration.
What I get out of this interaction at the end of it is usually a revised context that leads me figure out a better outcome. The AI doesn't give me the outcome. It gives me alternative contexts.
On the other hand, when I just have AI write code for me, I lose my mental model of the project and ultimately just feel like I'm delaying some kind of execution.
This will sound arrogant, but I can't shake the impression that agent programming is most appealing to amateurs, where the kind of software they build is really just glorified UIs and data plumbing.
I work on game engines which do some pretty heavy lifting, and I'd be loath to let these agents write the code for me.
They'd simply screw too much of it up and create a mess that I'm going to have to go through by hand later anyway, not just to ensure correctness but also performance.
I want to know what the code is doing, I want control over the fine details, and I want to have as much of the codebase within my mental understanding as possible.
Not saying they're not useful - obviously they are - just that something smells fishy about the success stories.
I like to use AI to write code for me, but I like to take it one step at a time, looking at what it puts out and thinking about if it puts out what I want it to put out.
As a PRODUCT person, it writes code 100x faster than I can, and I treat anything it writes as a "throwaway" prototype. I've never been able to treat my own code as throwaway, because I can't just throw away multiple weeks of work.
It doesn't aid in my learning to code, but it does aid in me putting out much better, much more polished work that I'm excited to use.
My observation is that vibe-coded applications are significantly lower quality than traditional software. Anthropic software (which they claim to be 90% vibe coded) is extremely buggy, especially the UI.
I've gone through this cycle too, and what I realized is that as a developer a large part of your job is making sure the code you write works, is maintainable, and you can explain how it works.
I use ai to develop, but at every code review I find stuff to be corrected, which motivates me to continuing the reviews. It's still a win I think though. I've incrementally increased my use of ai in development [1], but I'm at a plateau now I think. I don't plan to go over to complete vibe coding for anything serious or to be maintained.
Accurate and sane take! Current models are extremely good for very specific kinds of tasks. But beyond that, it is a coin toss. Gets worse as the context window goes beyond a few ten thousand tokens. If you have only vibe-coded toy projects (even with the latest fad - Ralph whatever) for anything serious, you can see how quickly it all falls apart.
It is quite scary that junior devs/college kids are more into vibe coding than putting in the effort to actually learn the fundamentals properly. This will create at least 2-3 generations of bad programmers down the line.
One use case that I'm beginning to find useful is to go into a specific directory of code that I have written and am working on, and ask the AI agent (Claude Code in my case) "Please find and list possible bugs in the code in this directory."
Then, I can reason through the AI agent's responses and decide what if anything I need to do about them.
I just did this for one project so far, but got surprisingly useful results.
It turns out that the possible bugs identified by the AI tool were not bugs based on the larger context of the code as it exists right now. For example, it found a function that returns a pointer, and it may return NULL. Call sites were not checking for a NULL return value. The code in its current state could never in fact return a NULL value. However, future-proofing this code, it would be good practice to check for this case in the call sites.
I think what many people do no understand is that software development is communication. Communication from the customers/stake holders to the developer and communication from with the developer to the machine. At some fundamental level there needs to be some precision about what you want and someone/something needs to translate that into a system to provide that solution. Software can help check if there are errors, check constraints, and execute instructions precisely, but they cannot replace the fact that someone needs to tell the machine what to do (precise intent).
What AI (LLMs) do is raises the level of abstraction to human language via translation. The problem is human language is imprecise in general. You can see this with legal or science writing. Legalese is almost illegible to laypeople because there are precise things you need to specify and you need be precise in how you specify it. Unfortunately the tech community is misleading the public and telling laypeople they can just sit back and casually tell AI what you want and it is going to give you exactly what you wanted. Users are just lying to themself, because most-likely they did not take the time to think through what they wanted and they are rationalizing (after the fact) that the AI is giving them exactly what they wanted.
after+30 years writing code in a dozen languages building systems from scratch I love vibe coding ... it's drinking from a fire hose ... in two months I vibe coded a container orchestration system which I call my kubernetes replacement project all in go with a controller deciding which VM to deploy containers onto, agents on each host polling etcd for requests created by the controller ... it's simple understandable maintainable extendable ... also vibe coded go cdk to deploy AWS RDS clusters, API gateway, handful of golang lambda functions, valkey elasticache and a full feature data service library which handles transactions and save points, cache ... I love building systems ... sure I could write all this from scratch by hand and I have but vibe coding quickly exposes me to the broad architecture decisions earlier giving me options to experiment on various alternatives ... google gemini in antigravity rocks and yes I've tried them all ... new devs should not be vibe coding for the first 5 years or more but I lucked into having decades of doing it by hand
In my experience it's great a writing sample code or solving obscure problems that would have been hard to google a solution for. However it fails sometimes and it can't get past some block, but neither can I unless I work hard at it.
Examples.
Thanks to Claude I've finally been able to disable the ssh subsystem of the GNOME keyring infrastructure that opens a modal window asking for ssh passhprases. What happened is that I always had to cancel the modal, look for the passhprase in my password manager, restart what made the modal open. What I have now is either a password prompt inside a terminal or a non modal dialog. Both ssh-add to a ssh agent.
However my new emacs windows still open in an about 100x100 px window on my new Debian 13 install, nothing suggested by Claude works. I'll have to dig into it but I'm not sure that's important enough. I usually don't create new windows after emacs starts with the saved desktop configuration.
Maybe I'm "vibecoding" wrong but to me at least this misses a clear step which is reviewing the code.
I think coding with an AI changes our role from code writer to code reviewer, and you have to treat it as a comprehensive review where you comment not just on code "correctness" but these other aspects the author mentions, how functions fits together, codebase patterns, architectural implications. While I feel like using AI might have made me a lazier coder, it's made me a me a significantly more active reviewer which I think at least helps to bridge the gap the author is referencing.
Good for the author. Me, never going back to hands-only coding. I am producing more higher quality code that I understand and feel confident in. I tell AI to not just “write tests”, I tell it exactly what to test as well. Then I’ll often prompt it “hey did you check for the xyz edge cases?” You need code reviews. You need to intervene. You will need frequent code rewrites and refactors. But AI is the best pair-coding partner you could hope for (at this time) and one that never gets tired.
So while there’s no free lunch, if you are willing to pay - your lunch will be a delicious unlimited buffet for a fraction of the cost.
Beware the two extremes - AI out of the box with no additional config, or writing code entirely by hand.
In order to get high accuracy PRs with AI (small, tested commits that follow existing patterns efficiently), you need to spend time adding agents (claude.md, agents.md), skills, hooks, and tools specific to your setup.
This is why so much development is happening at the plugin layer right now, especially with Claude code.
The juice is worth the squeeze. Once accuracy gets high enough you don't need to edit and babysit what is generated, you can horizontally scale your output.
I've never used an AI in agent mode (and have no particular plans to), but I do think they're nice for things like "okay, I have moved five fields from this struct into a new struct which I construct in the global setup function. go through and fix all the code that uses those fields". (deciding to move those fields into a new struct is something I do want to be doing myself though, as opposed to saying "refactor this code for me")
The tale of the coder, who finds a legacy codebase (sometimes of their own making) and looks at it with bewilderment is not new. It's a curious one, to a degree, but I don't think it has much to do with vibe coding.
> In retrospect, it made sense. Agents write units of changes that look good in isolation. They are consistent with themselves and your prompt. But respect for the whole, there is not. Respect for structural integrity there is not. Respect even for neighboring patterns there was not.
That's exactly why this whole (nowadays popular) notion of AI replacing senior devs who are capable of understanding large codebases is nonsense and will never become reality.
After reading the article (and watching the video), I think the author makes very clear points that comments here are skipping over.
The opener is 100% true. Our current approach with AI code is "draft a design in 15mins" and have AI implement it. The contrasts with the thoughtful approach a human would take with other human engineers. Plan something, pitch the design, get some feedback, take some time thinking through pros and cons. Begin implementing, pivot, realizations, improvements, design morphs.
The current vibe coding methodology is so eager to fire and forget and is passing incomplete knowledge unto an AI model with limited context, awareness and 1% of your mental model and intent at the moment you wrote the quick spec.
This is clearly not a recipe for reliable and resilient long-lasting code or even efficient code. Spec-driven development doesn't work when the spec is frozen and the builder cannot renegotiate intent mid-flight..
The second point made clearer in the video is the kind of learned patterns that can delude a coder, who is effectively 'doing the hard part', into thinking that the AI is the smart one. Or into thinking that the AI is more capable than it actually is.
I say this as someone who uses Claude Code and Codex daily. The claims of the article (and video) aren't strawman.
Can we progress past them? Perhaps, if we find ways to have agents iteratively improve designs on the fly rather than sticking with the original spec that, let's be honest, wasn't given the rigor relative to what we've asked the LLMs to accomplish. If our workflows somehow make the spec a living artifact again -- then agents can continuously re-check assumptions, surface tradeoffs, and refactor toward coherence instead of clinging to the first draft.
Great engagement-building post for the author’s startup, blog, etc. Contrarian and just plausible enough.
I disagree though. There’s no good reason that careful use of this new form of tooling can’t fully respect the whole, respect structural integrity, and respect neighboring patterns.
Process and plumbing become very important when using ai for coding. Yes, you need good prompts. But as the code base gets more complex, you also need to spend significant time developing test guides, standardization documents, custom linters, etc, to manage the agents over time.
I haven't been vibe coding for more than a few months.
It's just a tool with a high level of automation. That becomes clear when you have to guide it to use more sane practices, simple things like don't overuse HTTP headers when you don't need them.
I don't get what everyone sees in this post. It is just a sloppy rant. It just talks in generalities. There is no coherent argument, there are no examples, and we don't even know the problem space in which the author had bad coding assistant experience.
I don't know whether I would go that extreme, but I also often find myself faster writing code manually; for some tasks though and contextually, AI-assisted coding is pretty useful, but you still must be in the driving seat, at all times.
The part that most resonates with me is the lingering feeling of “oh but it must be my fault for underspecifying” which blocks the outright belief that models are just still sloppy at certain things
This is not my experience at all. Claude will ask me follow up questions if it has some. The claim that it goes full steam ahead on its original plan is false.
It still feels like gambling to me when I use AI code assistants to generate large chunks of code. Sometimes, it will surprise me with how well it does. Other times, it infuriatingly doesn't follow very precise instructions for small changes. This is even when I use it in the way that I often ask for multiple options for solutions and implementations and then choose between them after the AI tool does the course rating.
There are many instances where I get to the final part of the feature and realize I spent far more time coercing AI to do the right thing than it would have taken me to do it myself.
It is also sometimes really enjoyable and sometimes a horrible experience. Programming prior to it could also be frustrating at times, but not in the same way. Maybe it is the expectation of increased efficiency that is now demanded in the face of AI tools.
I do think AI tools are consistently great for small POCs or where very standard simple patterns are used. Outside of that, it is a crapshoot or slot machine.
a lot of AI assisted development goes into project management and system design.
I have been tolerably successful. However, I have almost 30 years of coding experience, and have the judgement on how big a component should be - when I push that myself _or_ with AI, things go hairy.
AI can be good under the right circumstances but only if reviewed 100% of the time by a human.
Homelab is my hobby where I run Proxmox, Debian VM, DNS, K8s, etc, all managed via Ansible.
For what it is worth, I hate docker :)
I wanted to setup a private tracker torrent that should include:
1) Jackett: For the authentication
2) Radarr: The inhouse browser
3) qBitorrent: which receives the torrent files automatically from Radarr
4) Jellyfin: Of course :)
I used ChatGPT to assist me into getting the above done as simple as possible and all done via Ansible:
1) Ansible playbook to setup a Debian LXC Proxmox container
2) Jackett + Radarr + qBitorrent all in one for simplicity
3) Wireguard VPN + Proton VPN: If the VPN ever go down, the entire container network must stop (IPTables) so my home IP isn't leaked.
After 3 nights I got everything working and running 24/7, but it required a lot of review so it can be managed 10 years down the road instead of WTF is this???
There were silly mistakes that make you question "Why am I even using this tool??" but then I remember, Google and search engines are dead. It would have taken me weeks to get this done otherwise, AI tools speed that process by fetching the info I need so I can put them together.
I use AI purely to replace the broken state of search engines, even Brave and DuckDuckGo, I know what I am asking it, not just copy/paste and hope it works.
I have colleagues also into IT field whose the company where they work are fully AI, full access to their environment, they no longer do the thinking, they just press the button.
These people are cooked, not just because of the state of AI, if they ever go look for another job, all they did for years was press a button!!
I am still fascinated by how convincing the AI slop can be. I saw way too much code and documentation which made no sense. But it's often not obvious. I read it, I don't get it, I read it again, am I just stupid? I can grab some threads from it, but overall, it just doesn't make sense, it doesn't click for me. And that's when I often realize, it doesn't click, because it's a slop. It's obvious in pictures (e.g., generate a picture of a bike with labels). But in code? It requires more time to look at it than to actually write it. So it just slips reviews, it sometimes even works as it should, but it's damn hard to understand and fix it in the future. Until eventually, nothing can fix it.
For the record, I use AI to generate code but not for "vibecoding". I don't believe when people tell me "you just prompt it badly". I saw enough to lose faith.
I feel vindicated by this article, but I shouldn't. I have to admit that I never developed the optimism to do this for two years, but have increasingly been trying to view this as a personal failing of closed-mindedness, brought on by an increasing number of commentators and colleagues coming around to "vibe-coding" as each "next big thing" in it dropped.
I think the most I can say I've dove in was in the last week. I wrangled some resources to build myself a setup with a completely self-hosted and agentic workflow and used several open-weight models that people around me had specifically recommended, and I had a work project that was self-contained and small enough to work from scratch. There were a few moving pieces but the models gave me what looked like a working solution within a few iterations, and I was duly impressed until I realized that it wasn't quite working as expected.
As I reviewed and iterated on it more with the agents, eventually this rube-goldberg machine started filling in gaps with print statements designed to trick me and sneaky block comments that mentioned that it was placeholder code not meant for production in oblique terms three lines into a boring description of what the output was supposed to be. This should have been obvious, but even at this point four days in I was finding myself missing more things, not understanding the code because I wasn't writing it. This is basically the automation blindness I feared from proprietary workflows that could be changed or taken away at any time, but much faster than I had assumed, and the promise of being able to work through it at this higher level, this new way of working, seemed less and less plausible the more I iterated, even starting over with chunks of the problem in new contexts as many suggest didn't really help.
I had deadlines, so I gave up and spent about half of my weekend fixing this by hand, and found it incredibly satisfying when it worked, but all-in this took more time and effort and perhaps more importantly caused more stress than just writing it in the first place probably would have
My background is in ML research, and this makes it perhaps easier to predict the failure modes of these things (though surprisingly many don't seem to), but also makes me want to be optimistic, to believe this can work, but I also have done a lot of work as a software engineer and I think my intuition remains that doing precision knowledge work of any kind at scale with a generative model remains A Very Suspect Idea that comes more from the dreams of the wealthy executive class than a real grounding in what generative models are capable of and how they're best employed.
I do remain optimistic that LLMs will continue to find use cases that better fit a niche of state-of-the-art natural language processing that is nonetheless probabilistic in nature. Many such use cases exist. Taking human job descriptions and trying to pretend they can do them entirely seems like a poorly-thought-out one, and we've to my mind poured enough money and effort into it that I think we can say it at the very least needs radically new breakthroughs to stand a chance of working as (optimistically) advertised
> It was pure, unadulterated slop. I was bewildered. Had I not reviewed every line of code before admitting it? Where did all this...gunk..come from?
I chuckled at this. This describes pretty much every large piece of software I've ever worked on. You don't need an LLM to create a giant piece of slop. To avoid it takes tons of planning, refinement, and diligence whether it's LLM's or humans writing it.
Google Maps completely and utterly obliterated my ability to navigate. I no longer actively navigated. I passively navigated.
This is no different. And I'm not talking about vibe coding. I just mean having an llm browser window open.
When you're losing your abilities, it's easy to think you're getting smarter. You feel pretty smart when you're pasting that code
But you'll know when you start asking "do me that thingy again". You'll know from your own prompts. You'll know when you look at older code you wrote with fear and awe. That "coding" has shifted from an activity like weaving cloth to one more like watching YouTube.
The author makes it sound like such a binary choice, but there's a happy middle where you are having AI generate large blocks of code and then you closely supervise it. My experience so far with AI is to treat it like you're a low-level manager delegating drudgework. I will regularly rewrite or reorganize parts of the code and give it back to the AI to reset the baseline and expectations.
AI is far from perfect, but the same is true about any work you may have to entrust to another person. Shipping slop because someone never checked the code was literally something that happened several times at startups I have worked at - no AI necessary!
Vibecoding is an interesting dynamic for a lot of coders specifically because you can be good or bad at vibecoding - but the skill to determine your success isn't necessarily your coding knowledge but your management and delegation soft skills.
Good luck finding an employer that lets you do this moving forward. The new reality is that no one can give the estimates they previously gave for tasks. \
"Amazingly, I’m faster, more accurate, more creative, more productive, and more efficient than AI, when you price everything in, and not just code tokens per hour."
I read that people just allow Claude Code free rein but after using it for a few months and seeing what it does I wonder how much of that is in front of users. CC is incredible as much as it is frustrating and a lot of what it churns out is utter rubbish.
I also keep seeing that writing more detailed specs is the answer and retorts from those saying we’re back to waterfall.
That isn’t true. I think more of the iteration has moved to the spec. Writing the code is so quick now so can make spec changes you wouldn’t dare before.
You also need gates like tests and you need very regular commits.
I’m gradually moving towards more detailed specs in the form of use cases and scenarios along with solid tests and a constantly tuned agent file + guidelines.
Through this I’m slowly moving back to letting Claude lose on implementation knowing I can do scan of the git diffs versus dealing with a thousand ask before edits and slowing things down.
I wish more critics would start to showcase examples of code slop. I'm not saying this because I defend the use of AI-coding, but rather because many junior devs. that read these types articles/blog posts may not know what slop is, or what it looks like. Simply put, you don't know what you don't know.
It took me about two weeks to realise this. I still use LLMs, but it's just a tool. Sometimes it's the right tool, but often it isn't. I don't use an SDS drill to smooth down a wall. I use sandpaper and do it by hand.
On the one hand, I created vibe coded a large-ish (100k LOC) C#, Python, Powershell project over the holidays. The whole thing was more than I could ever complete on my own in the 5 days it took to vibe code using three agents. I wrote countless markdown 'spec' files, etc.
The result stunned everyone I work with. I would never in a million years put this code on Github for others. It's terrible code for a myriad reasons.
My lived experience was... the task was accomplished but not in a sustainable way over the course of perhaps 80 individual sessions with the longest being multiple solid 45 minute refactors...(codex-max)
About those. One of things I spotted fairly quickly was the tendency of models to duplicate effort or take convoluted approaches to patch in behaviors. To get around this, I would every so often take the entire codebase, send it to Gemini-3 Pro and ask it for improvements. Comically, every time, Gemini-3-Pro responds with "well this code is hot garbage, you need to refactor these 20 things". Meanwhile, I'm side-eying like.. dude you wrote this. Never fails to amuse me.
So, in the end, the project was delivered, was pretty cool, had 5x more features than I would have implemented myself and once I got into a groove -- I was able to reduce the garbage through constant refactors from large code reviews. Net Positive experience on a project that had zero commercial value and zero risk to customers.
But on the other hand...
I spend a week troubleshooting a subtle resource leak (C#) on a commercial project that was introduced during a vibe-coding session where a new animation system was added and somehow added a bug that caused a hard crash on re-entering a planet scene.
The bug caused an all-stop and a week of lost effort. Countless AI Agent sessions circularly trying to review and resolve it. Countless human hours of testing and banging heads against monitors.
In the end, on the maybe random 10th pass using Gemini-3-Pro it provided a hint that was enough to find the issue.
This was a monumental fail and if game studios are using LLMs, good god, the future of buggy mess releases is only going to get worse.
I would summarize this experience as lots of amazement and new feature velocity. A little too loose with commits (too much entanglement to easily unwind later) and ultimately a negative experience.
A classic Agentic AI experience. 50% Amazing, 50% WTF.
Rants like this are
- entirely correct in describing frustration
- reasonable in their conclusions with respect to how and when to work with contemporary tools
- entirely incorrect in intuition about whether "writing by hand" is a viable path or career going forward
Like it not, as a friend observed, we are N months away a world where most engineers never looks at source code; and the spectrum of reasons one would want to will inexorably narrow.
It will never be zero.
But people who haven't yet typed a word of code never will.
This bubble is going to crash so much harder than any other bubble in history. It's almost impossible to overstate the level of hype. LLMs are functionally useless in any context. It's a total and absolute scam.
I vibe coded for a while (about a year) it was just so terrible for my ability to do anything, it started becoming recurring that I couldn't control my timelines because I would get into a loop where I would keep asking AI to "fix" things I didn't actually understand and had no mental capacity to actually read 50k lines of LLM generated code compared to if I had done it from scratch so I would keep and keep going.
Or how I would start spamming SQL scripts and randomly at some point nuke all my work (happened more than once)... luckily at least I had backups regularly but... yeah.
I'm sorry but no, LLMs can't replace software engineers.
Everything the OP says can be true, but there’s a tipping point where you learn to break through the cruft and generate good code at scale.
It requires refactoring at scale, but GenAI is fast so hitting the same code 25 times isn’t a dealbreaker.
Eventually the refactoring is targeted at smaller and smaller bits until the entire project is in excellent shape.
I’m still working on Sharpee, an interactive fiction authoring platform, but it’s fairly well-baked at this point and 99% coded by Claude and 100% managed by me.
Sharpee is a complex system and a lot of the inner-workings (stdlib) were like coats of paint. It didn’t shine until it was refactored at least a dozen times.
It has over a thousand unit tests, which I’ve read through and refactored by hand in some cases.
After two years of vibecoding, I'm back to writing by hand
(atmoio.substack.com)802 points by mobitar 26 January 2026 | 575 comments
Comments
I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'T let the machines write the code. Yes, they can write the code: you are a student, the code isn't hard yet. But you HAVE to write the code.
> you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed.
That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ disappointed. I've never gotten satisfactory code/script result from them without a tremendous amount of pushback, "do this part again with ...", do that, don't do that.
Maybe I'm just a crank with too many preferences. But I hardly believe so. The minimum requirement should be for the code to work. It often doesn't. Feedback helps, right. But if you've got a problem where a simple, contained feedback loop isn't that easy to build, the only source of feedback is yourself. And that's when you are exposed to the stupidity of current AI models.
It is hands down good for code which is laborious or tedious to write, but once done, obviously correct or incorrect (with low effort inspection). Tests help but only if the code comes out nicely structured.
I made plenty of tools like this, a replacement REPL for MS-SQL, a caching tool in Python, a matplotlib helper. Things that I know 90% how to write anyway but don't have the time, but once in front of me, obviously correct or incorrect. NP code I suppose.
But business critical stuff is rarely like this, for me anyway. It is complex, has to deal with various subtle edge cases, be written defensively (so it fails predictably and gracefully), well structured etc. and try as I might, I can't get Claude to write stuff that's up to scratch in this department.
I'll give it instructions on how to write some specific function, it will write this code but not use it, and use something else instead. It will pepper the code with rookie mistakes like writing the same logic N times in different places instead of factoring it out. It will miss key parts of the spec and insist it did it, or tell me "Yea you are right! Let me rewrite it" and not actually fix the issue.
I also have a sense that it got a lot dumber over time. My expectations may have changed of course too, but still. I suspect even within a model, there is some variability of how much compute is used (eg how deep the beam search is) and supply/demand means this knob is continuously tuned down.
I still try to use Claude for tasks like this, but increasingly find my hit rate so low that the whole "don't write any code yet, let's build a spec" exercise is a waste of time.
I still find Claude good as a rubber duck or to discuss design or errors - a better Stack Exchange.
But you can't split your software spec into a set of SE questions then paste the code from top answers.
That's your job.
The great thing about coding agents is that you can tell them "change of design: all API interactions need to go through a new single class that does authentication and retries and rate-limit throttling" and... they'll track down dozens or even hundreds of places that need updating and fix them all.
(And the automated test suite will help them confirm that the refactoring worked properly, because naturally you had them construct an automated test suite when they built those original features, right?)
Going back to typing all of the code yourself (my interpretation of "writing by hand") because you don't have the agent-managerial skills to tell the coding agents how to clean up the mess they made feels short-sighted to me.
There's been such a massive leap in capabilities since claude code came out, which was middle/end of 2025.
2 years ago I MAYBE used an LLM to take unstructured data and give me a json object of a specific structure. Only about 1 year ago did I start using llms for ANY type of coding and I would generally use snippets, not whole codebases. It wasn't until September when I started really leveraging the LLM for coding.
Well yea, but you can guard against this in several ways. My way is to understand my own codebase and look at the output of the LLM.
LLMs allow me to write code faster and it also gives a lot of discoverability of programming concepts I didn't know much about. For example, it plugged in a lot of Tailwind CSS, which I've never used before. With that said, it does not absolve me from not knowing my own codebase, unless I'm (temporarily) fine with my codebase being fractured conceptually in wonky ways.
I think vibecoding is amazing for creating quick high fidelity prototypes for a green field project. You create it, you vibe code it all the way until your app is just how you want it to feel. Then you refactor it and scale it.
I'm currently looking at 4009 lines of JS/JSX combined. I'm still vibecoding my prototype. I recently looked at the codebase and saw some ready made improvements so I did them. But I think I'll start to need to actually engineer anything once I reach the 10K line mark.
This is the bit I think enthusiasts need to argue doesn't apply.
Have you ever read a 200 page vibewritten novel and found it satisfying?
So why do you think a 10 kLoC vibecoded codebase will be any good engineering-wise?
On a personal note, vibe coding leaves me with that same empty hollow sort of tiredness, as a day filled with meetings.
It came very close to success, but there were 2 or 3 big show-stopping bugs such as it forgetting to update the spatial partitioning when the entities moved, so it would work at the start but then degrade over time.
It believed and got stuck on thinking that it must be the algorithm itself that was the problem, so at some point it just stuck a generic boids solution into the middle of the rest. To make it worse, it didn't even bother to use the spatial partitioning and they were just brute force looking at their neighbours.
Had this been a real system it might have made its way into production, which makes one think about the value of the AI code out there. As it was I pointed out that bit and asked about it, at which point it admitted that it was definitely a mistake and then it removed it.
I had previously implement my own version of the algorithm and it took me quite a bit of time, but during that I built up the mental code model and understood both the problem and solution by the end. In comparison it easily implemented it 10-30x faster than I did but would never have managed to complete the project on its own. Also if I hadn't previously implemented it myself and had just tried to have it do the heavy lifting then I wouldn't have understood enough of what it was doing to overcome its issues and get the code working properly.
I also like to think that I'm utilising the training done on many millions of lines of code while still using my experience/opinions to arrive at something compared to just using my fallible thinking wherein I could have missed some interesting ideas. Its like me++. Sure, it does a lot of heavy lifting but I never leave the steering wheel. I guess I'm still at the pre-agentic stage and not ready to letting go fully.
I’m not sure if this counts as “vibe coding” per se, but I like that this mentality keeps my workday somewhat similar to how it was for decades. Finding/creating holes that the agent can fill with minimal adult supervision is a completely new routine throughout my day, but I think obsessing over maintainability will pay off, like it always has.
It's crazy to me nevertheless that some people can afford the luxury to completely renounce AI-assisted coding.
My habit now: always get a 2nd or 3rd opinion before assuming one LLM is correct.
Might be my skills but I can tell you right now I will not be as fast as the AI especially in new codebases or other languages or different environments even with all the debugging and hell that is AI pull request review.
I think the answer here is fast AI for things it can do on its own, and slow, composed, human in the loop AI for the bigger things to make sure it gets it right. (At least until it gets most things right through innovative orchestration and model improvement moving forward.)
I have AI build self-contained, smallish tasks and I check everything it does to keep the result consistent with global patterns and vision.
I stay in the loop and commit often.
Looks to me like the problem a lot of people are having is that they have AI do the whole thing.
If you ask it "refactor code to be more modern", it might guess what you mean and do it in a way you like it or not, but most likely it won't.
If you keep tasks small and clearly specced out it works just fine. A lot better than doing it by hand in many cases, specially for prototyping.
I tried minimalist example where it totally failed few years back, and still, ChatGPT 5 produced 2 examples for "Async counter in Rust" - using Atomics and another one using tokio::sync::Mutex. I learned it was wrong then the hard way, by trying to profile high latency. To my surprise, here's quote from Tokio Mutex documentation:
Contrary to popular belief, it is ok and often preferred to use the ordinary Mutex from the standard library in asynchronous code.
The feature that the async mutex offers over the blocking mutex is the ability to keep it locked across an .await point.
If what you're doing is proprietary, or even a little bit novel. There is a really good chance that AI will screw it up. After all, how can it possibly know how to solve a problem it has never seen before?
it'll be really interesting to see in the decades to come what happens when a whole industry gets used to releasing black boxes by vb coding the hell out of it
I have to go out of my way to get this out of llms. But with enough persuasion, they produce roughly what I would have written myself.
Otherwise they default to adding as much bloat and abstraction as possible. This appears to be the default mode of operation in the training set.
I also prefer to use it interactively. I divide the problem to chunks. I get it to write each chunk. The whole makes sense. Work with its strengths and weaknesses rather than against them.
For interactive use I have found smaller models to be better than bigger models. First of all because they are much faster. And second because, my philosophy now is to use the smallest model that does the job. Everything else by definition is unnecessarily slow and expensive!
But there is a qualitative difference at a certain level of speed, where something goes from not interactive to interactive. Then you can actually stay in flow, and then you can actually stay consciously engaged.
Once I mastered the finite number of operations and behaviors, I knew how to tell "it" what to do and it would work. The only thing different about vibe coding is the scale of operations and behaviors. It is doing exactly what you're telling it to do. And also expectations need to be aligned. Don't think you can hand over architecture and design to the LLM; that's still your job. The gain is, the LLM will deal with the proper syntax, api calls, etc. and work as a reserach tool on steroids if you also (from another mentor later in life) ask good questions.
I am writing a game in Monogame, I am not primarily a game dev or a c sharp dev. I find AI is fantastic here for "Set up a configuration class for this project that maps key bindings" and have it handle the boiler plate and smaller configuration. Its great at give me an A start implementation for this graph. But when it becomes x -> y -> z without larger contexts and evolutions it falls flat. I still need creativity. I just don't worry too much about boiler plate, utility methods, and figuring out specifics of wiring a framework together.
Option 1: The cost/benefit delta of agentic engineering never improves past net-zero, and bespoke hand-written code stays as valuable as ever.
Option 2: The cost/benefit becomes net positive, and economics of scale forever tie the cost of code production directly to the cost of inference tokens.
Given that many are saying option #2 is already upon us, I'm gonna keep challenging myself to engineer a way past the hurdles I run into with agent-oriented programming.
The deeper I get, the more articles like this feel like the modern equivalent of saying "internet connections are too slow to do real work" or "computers are too expensive to be useful for regular people".
I will have a conversation with the agent. I will present it with a context, an observed behavior, and a question... often tinged with frustration.
What I get out of this interaction at the end of it is usually a revised context that leads me figure out a better outcome. The AI doesn't give me the outcome. It gives me alternative contexts.
On the other hand, when I just have AI write code for me, I lose my mental model of the project and ultimately just feel like I'm delaying some kind of execution.
I work on game engines which do some pretty heavy lifting, and I'd be loath to let these agents write the code for me.
They'd simply screw too much of it up and create a mess that I'm going to have to go through by hand later anyway, not just to ensure correctness but also performance.
I want to know what the code is doing, I want control over the fine details, and I want to have as much of the codebase within my mental understanding as possible.
Not saying they're not useful - obviously they are - just that something smells fishy about the success stories.
As a PRODUCT person, it writes code 100x faster than I can, and I treat anything it writes as a "throwaway" prototype. I've never been able to treat my own code as throwaway, because I can't just throw away multiple weeks of work.
It doesn't aid in my learning to code, but it does aid in me putting out much better, much more polished work that I'm excited to use.
1: https://asfaload.com/blog/ai_use/
Nobody forces you to completely let go of the code and do pure vibe coding. You can also do small iterations.
It is quite scary that junior devs/college kids are more into vibe coding than putting in the effort to actually learn the fundamentals properly. This will create at least 2-3 generations of bad programmers down the line.
Then, I can reason through the AI agent's responses and decide what if anything I need to do about them.
I just did this for one project so far, but got surprisingly useful results.
It turns out that the possible bugs identified by the AI tool were not bugs based on the larger context of the code as it exists right now. For example, it found a function that returns a pointer, and it may return NULL. Call sites were not checking for a NULL return value. The code in its current state could never in fact return a NULL value. However, future-proofing this code, it would be good practice to check for this case in the call sites.
What AI (LLMs) do is raises the level of abstraction to human language via translation. The problem is human language is imprecise in general. You can see this with legal or science writing. Legalese is almost illegible to laypeople because there are precise things you need to specify and you need be precise in how you specify it. Unfortunately the tech community is misleading the public and telling laypeople they can just sit back and casually tell AI what you want and it is going to give you exactly what you wanted. Users are just lying to themself, because most-likely they did not take the time to think through what they wanted and they are rationalizing (after the fact) that the AI is giving them exactly what they wanted.
Examples.
Thanks to Claude I've finally been able to disable the ssh subsystem of the GNOME keyring infrastructure that opens a modal window asking for ssh passhprases. What happened is that I always had to cancel the modal, look for the passhprase in my password manager, restart what made the modal open. What I have now is either a password prompt inside a terminal or a non modal dialog. Both ssh-add to a ssh agent.
However my new emacs windows still open in an about 100x100 px window on my new Debian 13 install, nothing suggested by Claude works. I'll have to dig into it but I'm not sure that's important enough. I usually don't create new windows after emacs starts with the saved desktop configuration.
I think coding with an AI changes our role from code writer to code reviewer, and you have to treat it as a comprehensive review where you comment not just on code "correctness" but these other aspects the author mentions, how functions fits together, codebase patterns, architectural implications. While I feel like using AI might have made me a lazier coder, it's made me a me a significantly more active reviewer which I think at least helps to bridge the gap the author is referencing.
So while there’s no free lunch, if you are willing to pay - your lunch will be a delicious unlimited buffet for a fraction of the cost.
In order to get high accuracy PRs with AI (small, tested commits that follow existing patterns efficiently), you need to spend time adding agents (claude.md, agents.md), skills, hooks, and tools specific to your setup.
This is why so much development is happening at the plugin layer right now, especially with Claude code.
The juice is worth the squeeze. Once accuracy gets high enough you don't need to edit and babysit what is generated, you can horizontally scale your output.
That's exactly why this whole (nowadays popular) notion of AI replacing senior devs who are capable of understanding large codebases is nonsense and will never become reality.
The opener is 100% true. Our current approach with AI code is "draft a design in 15mins" and have AI implement it. The contrasts with the thoughtful approach a human would take with other human engineers. Plan something, pitch the design, get some feedback, take some time thinking through pros and cons. Begin implementing, pivot, realizations, improvements, design morphs.
The current vibe coding methodology is so eager to fire and forget and is passing incomplete knowledge unto an AI model with limited context, awareness and 1% of your mental model and intent at the moment you wrote the quick spec.
This is clearly not a recipe for reliable and resilient long-lasting code or even efficient code. Spec-driven development doesn't work when the spec is frozen and the builder cannot renegotiate intent mid-flight..
The second point made clearer in the video is the kind of learned patterns that can delude a coder, who is effectively 'doing the hard part', into thinking that the AI is the smart one. Or into thinking that the AI is more capable than it actually is.
I say this as someone who uses Claude Code and Codex daily. The claims of the article (and video) aren't strawman.
Can we progress past them? Perhaps, if we find ways to have agents iteratively improve designs on the fly rather than sticking with the original spec that, let's be honest, wasn't given the rigor relative to what we've asked the LLMs to accomplish. If our workflows somehow make the spec a living artifact again -- then agents can continuously re-check assumptions, surface tradeoffs, and refactor toward coherence instead of clinging to the first draft.
"AI can be good -- very good -- at building parts. For now, it's very bad at the big picture."
I disagree though. There’s no good reason that careful use of this new form of tooling can’t fully respect the whole, respect structural integrity, and respect neighboring patterns.
As always, it’s not the tool.
That's a very bad way to look at these tools. They legit know nothing, they hallucinate APIs all the time.
The only value they have at least in my book is they type super fast.
It's just a tool with a high level of automation. That becomes clear when you have to guide it to use more sane practices, simple things like don't overuse HTTP headers when you don't need them.
You should never just let AI "figure it out." It's the assistant, not the driver.
Good take though.
this is such an individualized technology that two people at the same starting point two years ago, could've developed wildly different workflows.
There are many instances where I get to the final part of the feature and realize I spent far more time coercing AI to do the right thing than it would have taken me to do it myself.
It is also sometimes really enjoyable and sometimes a horrible experience. Programming prior to it could also be frustrating at times, but not in the same way. Maybe it is the expectation of increased efficiency that is now demanded in the face of AI tools.
I do think AI tools are consistently great for small POCs or where very standard simple patterns are used. Outside of that, it is a crapshoot or slot machine.
I have been tolerably successful. However, I have almost 30 years of coding experience, and have the judgement on how big a component should be - when I push that myself _or_ with AI, things go hairy.
ymmv.
Homelab is my hobby where I run Proxmox, Debian VM, DNS, K8s, etc, all managed via Ansible.
For what it is worth, I hate docker :)
I wanted to setup a private tracker torrent that should include:
1) Jackett: For the authentication
2) Radarr: The inhouse browser
3) qBitorrent: which receives the torrent files automatically from Radarr
4) Jellyfin: Of course :)
I used ChatGPT to assist me into getting the above done as simple as possible and all done via Ansible:
1) Ansible playbook to setup a Debian LXC Proxmox container
2) Jackett + Radarr + qBitorrent all in one for simplicity
3) Wireguard VPN + Proton VPN: If the VPN ever go down, the entire container network must stop (IPTables) so my home IP isn't leaked.
After 3 nights I got everything working and running 24/7, but it required a lot of review so it can be managed 10 years down the road instead of WTF is this???
There were silly mistakes that make you question "Why am I even using this tool??" but then I remember, Google and search engines are dead. It would have taken me weeks to get this done otherwise, AI tools speed that process by fetching the info I need so I can put them together.
I use AI purely to replace the broken state of search engines, even Brave and DuckDuckGo, I know what I am asking it, not just copy/paste and hope it works.
I have colleagues also into IT field whose the company where they work are fully AI, full access to their environment, they no longer do the thinking, they just press the button. These people are cooked, not just because of the state of AI, if they ever go look for another job, all they did for years was press a button!!
For the record, I use AI to generate code but not for "vibecoding". I don't believe when people tell me "you just prompt it badly". I saw enough to lose faith.
This is vibe argumenting.
I think the most I can say I've dove in was in the last week. I wrangled some resources to build myself a setup with a completely self-hosted and agentic workflow and used several open-weight models that people around me had specifically recommended, and I had a work project that was self-contained and small enough to work from scratch. There were a few moving pieces but the models gave me what looked like a working solution within a few iterations, and I was duly impressed until I realized that it wasn't quite working as expected.
As I reviewed and iterated on it more with the agents, eventually this rube-goldberg machine started filling in gaps with print statements designed to trick me and sneaky block comments that mentioned that it was placeholder code not meant for production in oblique terms three lines into a boring description of what the output was supposed to be. This should have been obvious, but even at this point four days in I was finding myself missing more things, not understanding the code because I wasn't writing it. This is basically the automation blindness I feared from proprietary workflows that could be changed or taken away at any time, but much faster than I had assumed, and the promise of being able to work through it at this higher level, this new way of working, seemed less and less plausible the more I iterated, even starting over with chunks of the problem in new contexts as many suggest didn't really help.
I had deadlines, so I gave up and spent about half of my weekend fixing this by hand, and found it incredibly satisfying when it worked, but all-in this took more time and effort and perhaps more importantly caused more stress than just writing it in the first place probably would have
My background is in ML research, and this makes it perhaps easier to predict the failure modes of these things (though surprisingly many don't seem to), but also makes me want to be optimistic, to believe this can work, but I also have done a lot of work as a software engineer and I think my intuition remains that doing precision knowledge work of any kind at scale with a generative model remains A Very Suspect Idea that comes more from the dreams of the wealthy executive class than a real grounding in what generative models are capable of and how they're best employed.
I do remain optimistic that LLMs will continue to find use cases that better fit a niche of state-of-the-art natural language processing that is nonetheless probabilistic in nature. Many such use cases exist. Taking human job descriptions and trying to pretend they can do them entirely seems like a poorly-thought-out one, and we've to my mind poured enough money and effort into it that I think we can say it at the very least needs radically new breakthroughs to stand a chance of working as (optimistically) advertised
I chuckled at this. This describes pretty much every large piece of software I've ever worked on. You don't need an LLM to create a giant piece of slop. To avoid it takes tons of planning, refinement, and diligence whether it's LLM's or humans writing it.
This is no different. And I'm not talking about vibe coding. I just mean having an llm browser window open.
When you're losing your abilities, it's easy to think you're getting smarter. You feel pretty smart when you're pasting that code
But you'll know when you start asking "do me that thingy again". You'll know from your own prompts. You'll know when you look at older code you wrote with fear and awe. That "coding" has shifted from an activity like weaving cloth to one more like watching YouTube.
Active coding vs passive coding
AI is far from perfect, but the same is true about any work you may have to entrust to another person. Shipping slop because someone never checked the code was literally something that happened several times at startups I have worked at - no AI necessary!
Vibecoding is an interesting dynamic for a lot of coders specifically because you can be good or bad at vibecoding - but the skill to determine your success isn't necessarily your coding knowledge but your management and delegation soft skills.
I just bootstrapped a 500k loc MVP with AI Generator, Community and Zapier integration.
www.clases.community
And is my 3rd project that size, fully vibe coded
"Amazingly, I’m faster, more accurate, more creative, more productive, and more efficient than AI, when you price everything in, and not just code tokens per hour."
For 99.99% of developers this just won't be true.
I also keep seeing that writing more detailed specs is the answer and retorts from those saying we’re back to waterfall.
That isn’t true. I think more of the iteration has moved to the spec. Writing the code is so quick now so can make spec changes you wouldn’t dare before.
You also need gates like tests and you need very regular commits.
I’m gradually moving towards more detailed specs in the form of use cases and scenarios along with solid tests and a constantly tuned agent file + guidelines.
Through this I’m slowly moving back to letting Claude lose on implementation knowing I can do scan of the git diffs versus dealing with a thousand ask before edits and slowing things down.
When this works you start to see the magic.
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/568/
Even if we reach the point where it's as good as a good senior dev. We will still have to explain what we want it to do.
That's how I find it most helpful too. I give it a task and work out the spec based on the bad assumptions it makes and manually fix it.
The result stunned everyone I work with. I would never in a million years put this code on Github for others. It's terrible code for a myriad reasons.
My lived experience was... the task was accomplished but not in a sustainable way over the course of perhaps 80 individual sessions with the longest being multiple solid 45 minute refactors...(codex-max)
About those. One of things I spotted fairly quickly was the tendency of models to duplicate effort or take convoluted approaches to patch in behaviors. To get around this, I would every so often take the entire codebase, send it to Gemini-3 Pro and ask it for improvements. Comically, every time, Gemini-3-Pro responds with "well this code is hot garbage, you need to refactor these 20 things". Meanwhile, I'm side-eying like.. dude you wrote this. Never fails to amuse me.
So, in the end, the project was delivered, was pretty cool, had 5x more features than I would have implemented myself and once I got into a groove -- I was able to reduce the garbage through constant refactors from large code reviews. Net Positive experience on a project that had zero commercial value and zero risk to customers.
But on the other hand...
I spend a week troubleshooting a subtle resource leak (C#) on a commercial project that was introduced during a vibe-coding session where a new animation system was added and somehow added a bug that caused a hard crash on re-entering a planet scene.
The bug caused an all-stop and a week of lost effort. Countless AI Agent sessions circularly trying to review and resolve it. Countless human hours of testing and banging heads against monitors.
In the end, on the maybe random 10th pass using Gemini-3-Pro it provided a hint that was enough to find the issue.
This was a monumental fail and if game studios are using LLMs, good god, the future of buggy mess releases is only going to get worse.
I would summarize this experience as lots of amazement and new feature velocity. A little too loose with commits (too much entanglement to easily unwind later) and ultimately a negative experience.
A classic Agentic AI experience. 50% Amazing, 50% WTF.
2026: "If I can just write the specs so that the machine understands them it will write me code that works."
Like it not, as a friend observed, we are N months away a world where most engineers never looks at source code; and the spectrum of reasons one would want to will inexorably narrow.
It will never be zero.
But people who haven't yet typed a word of code never will.
his points about why he stopped using AI: these are the things us reluctant AI adopters have been saying since this all started.
Or how I would start spamming SQL scripts and randomly at some point nuke all my work (happened more than once)... luckily at least I had backups regularly but... yeah.
I'm sorry but no, LLMs can't replace software engineers.
It requires refactoring at scale, but GenAI is fast so hitting the same code 25 times isn’t a dealbreaker.
Eventually the refactoring is targeted at smaller and smaller bits until the entire project is in excellent shape.
I’m still working on Sharpee, an interactive fiction authoring platform, but it’s fairly well-baked at this point and 99% coded by Claude and 100% managed by me.
Sharpee is a complex system and a lot of the inner-workings (stdlib) were like coats of paint. It didn’t shine until it was refactored at least a dozen times.
It has over a thousand unit tests, which I’ve read through and refactored by hand in some cases.
The results speak for themselves.
https://sharpee.net/ https://github.com/chicagodave/sharpee/
It’s still in beta, but not far from release status.