Where are the vibecoded Photoshops? A critique of AI‑generated artifacts
Clarify that vibecoding claims lack evidence and that AI only lowers Level 1 work.
Document the lack of evidence for vibecoded claims and avoid using the term in documentation.
Summary
The author argues that the hype around vibecoded software—AI‑generated Photoshop, Excel, Maya, Blender, compilers, and even operating systems—has not materialised. He explains that AI has lowered the cost of Level 1 work (typing, syntax) but has not impacted Level 2 (verification) or Level 3 (design decisions). The ‘gate’ that holds a system together remains at Levels 2 and 3, where human expertise is still required. The author claims that accusations of vibecoded are unfounded, lacking definition, testability, and evidence, and that they serve to harass developers who rely on AI for routine tasks. He recounts his own experience building a 90‑test harness for a Python‑based C64 assembler, emphasising that rigorous verification is essential. The rant concludes that the term ‘vibecoded’ is a rhetorical device used to undermine confidence in AI‑assisted work, rather than a technical reality.
Key changes
- AI reduces Level 1 effort but not Level 2 verification or Level 3 design decisions
- The ‘gate’ that holds systems together remains at Levels 2 and 3
- Accusations of vibecoded software are unfounded and lack testability
- Rigorous verification (e.g., 90‑test harness) is essential for reliable output