The vibe coder's career path is doomed

> “Soon, everyone will be a developer”

This is the wrong view. It's more like "Soon, everyone will be able to go from idea to a prototype". IMO, there's a different value perception when people can use concrete things even if they are not perfect. This is what I like about end-to-end vibe coding tools. I don't see a non developer using Claude Code but I can totally see them using Github Spark or any similar tool. After that, the question is how can I ensure this person can keep moving forward with the idea.

All LLMs hit a ceiling of complexity beyond which they cease to understand the code base. Greenfield projects show this particularly well, because the LLM works until it doesn’t. There are lots of greenfield projects that should exist! And lots of ways that someone can manage context and their own understanding of code to push the LLM further than its current limits, although not indefinitely far.

I think the author is a bit behind the "complexity prompting" state of things. He says learning vibe coding is easy and he did it in a couple of weeks, but he also hit a wall and now its bugs everywhere. So maybe... there is more to learn?

I also hit the complexity wall and worked through it. LLMs are genius with arms that can reach anything but eyes two inches from the screen. As a metaphor, think of when a code base gets too big for one person to manage everything, people start to "own" different parts of the code. Treat LLMs the same and build a different context for each owner.

The key is to not get to a point where you lose sight of the big picture. You are riding a bronco - try not to get thrown off! If you do, ask the LLM to describe the structure of things or restructure things to be more consistent, etc. Get to a place where YOU understand everything, at least in an architectural sense. Only then can you properly instruct the AI forward.

The article isn't saying "vibe coding goes nowhere" -- that's just the headline.

The point being made is that vibe coding is changing so fast that any investments you make today into learning is quickly obsolete tomorrow as someone puts out a new tool/framework/VSCode-fork that automates/incorporates your home-brewed prompt workflow.

It's like a deflationary spiral in economics -- if you know that prices will drop tomorrow, only the sucker buys something today (but because no one is buying today, that demand destruction causes prices to drop, creating a self-fulfilling doom loop).

Similarly: with LLM coding, any investment you spend in figuring out how to prompt-engineer your planning phase will be made obsolete by tomorrow's tools. Really your blog post about "how I made Claude agents develop 5 feature branches in parallel" is free R&D for the next AI tool developer who will just incorporate your tips&tricks (and theoretically even monetize it for themselves)

The argument here (get your pitchforks ready, all ye early adopters) is "we all just need to sit back for 6 months and see how these tools shake out, early adoption is just wasted effort."

I know 2 MBA types who have been in tech a long time who are currently doing a combo of vibe coding v0 style coupled with a regular LLM spitting out code (o3 pro I believe), coupled with a coding agent in slack they talk to, connected to github, both of them seem to be making considerably progress on being able to launch to a few 100 users on their own. That said, both of them seem to realize they can't scale an app without devops, so they will hit a wall there I suspect. Largely agree with this blog, but we'll see where things go with agents.

If coding agents progress like the predictions, there is no world where many people are not out of jobs. Not just coders, but code related jobs. There is so much infra around humans not writing good code, or not being able to plan well.

If agents get so good that they overcome these obstacles then most mid tier companies dev staff is going to be a couple of people making sure the agents are online and running.

Vibe coding is just the canary in the coal mine.

> There's no first-mover advantage when the entire playing field gets bulldozed.

I feel like the AI companies are constantly getting ahead of themselves. The recent generation of LLMs is getting really good at writing or modifying code incrementally following a precise specification. But no, of course that's no longer good enough. Now we have agents who are as dodgy as LLMs were a few years ago. It's as if Boeing launched the 707 too early, got it to work after a few (plane) crashes, but then, instead of focusing on that, they launch the 747 also too early, and it also promptly crashes. Little wonder that people will be more preoccupied with the crashes than with what actually works...

The author got too big for their britches and was drunk on perceived power. No need to have many parallel agents going on. Focus on one project and implementing features one at a time and dogfooding and testing. Shipping any code, vibed or not, then saying it blew up is not the LLMs fault. I can’t believe I’m saying that. It’s the shipper’s responsibility to make sure it works. Of course if you are a manager and let your junior ship code it will blow up…

And yes I know AI is marketed as more. But it’s still people’s fault for swallowing the PR and shipping crappy code then complaining about the lies. Stop deflecting responsibility for your work

I feel like I won the lottery.

Everyone is doing this sort of "better write some MCPs" thing, so that you can keep the LLM on the straight and narrow.

Well, let me tell you something. I just went through my entire backlog of improvements to my trading system with Claude, and I didn't write any MCPs, I didn't write long paragraphs for every instruction. I just said things like:

- We need a mock exchange that fits the same interface. Boom, here you go.

- How about some tests for the mock exchange? Also done.

- Let's make the mock exchange have a sawtooth pattern in the prices. Ok.

- I want to write some smart order managers that can manage VWAPs, float-with-market, and so on. Boom, here you go.

- But I don't understand how the smart orders are used in a strategy? Ok, here's a bunch of tests for you to study.

- I think we could parse the incoming messages faster. Read the docs about this lib, I think we can use this thing here. Boom, done.

- I have some benchmarks set up for one exchange, can you set up similar for others? Done.

- You added a lock, I don't want that, let's not share data, let's pass a message. Claude goes through the code, changes all the patterns it made, problem solved.

- This struct <here>, it has a member that is initialized in two steps. Let's do it in one. Boom, done.

- I'm gonna show you an old repo, it uses this old market data connector. How do we use the new one instead? Claude suggests an upgrade plan starting with a shared module, continuing towards full integration. Does the first bit, I'm mulling over the second.

Over the last four days, it has revolutionized my code. I had a bunch of things I knew I could do if given enough time. None of the above would stump me as an experienced dev these days. But it would take my attention. I'd be in a loop of edit/compile/test over every feature I've mentioned above, and I would be sure to have errors in either syntax or structure. At some point, I would use a pattern that was not ideal, and I'd have to backtrack and type/google/stackoverflow my way out of, and each step would take a while.

Now, I can tell Claude what to do, and it does it. When it fails, it's productively failing. It's closer to the target, and a gentle nudge pushes it to where I want.

Of course this whole "it will make your more productive" marketing s** is absurd! How can we know? Living on the Moon will make you 27% happier! How do you know that? Has anyone done it in the past? Is there data to back that up? How would you measure happiness? How do we measure productivity, for that matter? That one is still a mystery. But it doesn't matter that we don't know how to, we'll just make it 2x better. That's absurd!

I remember from the days when watching TV. There were these preposterous commercials saying "23% more efficient than other toothpastes" or "33% less dandruff than a regular shampoo" or shit like that. How do you know what products do I use? How do you measure that? What skin type? No. It is just better. Trust us.

I mean, the financial backing in this sector is staggering. We know that already. It's a fact. There are also numbers. Billions if not trillions of them. What does Joe The Developer think all this kind of money goes to? Some of them, and not a small part, goes into marketing. Unless Joe still believes in the "build it and they will come" fake motto. Whomever has a stake in this will back it up, marketing it like crazy. Assume victory even in defeat as the old guy says. I was laughing hard one day when I saw Ilya Sutskever, laptop in hand, strolling the parks for a green meadow to work, develop ground-breaking ideas to save humanity! That's just marketing.

Liked your post. I don't think it matters (that much) that your native language is not English. We don't want to sound all the same by using AI to fix our grammar (ok, maybe this one, yes) or the awkward twists of sentences. Sometimes AI fixes them too good, leaving little room for some poetry into it.

That's what I've saying forever. All of a sudden, everyone's thinking being a software engineer is just all about writing code. In fact, coding is easiest thing for devs. And to be honest, I think everyone's misunderstanding the term "vibe coding" so much that if you use any AI tools in your workflow, you're labeled a vibe coder. That's not Andrej karpathy meant when he coined this term.