I would be very impressed with someone who's been vibecoding "a lot" for about a year who could then go back to being fully in the loop for even 50%. I would even say I'd expect withdrawal symptoms at that point. The dopamine hits are core to why people even do vibecoding (or vibecoding-in-a-dress/spec-driven development) and why they tend to overestimate its output so much. Hell, it's core to all forms of LLM-assisted development (because it feels like magic), but most of the other forms are more value, less delusion.

I actually don’t find vibe coding satisfying is one of the many reasons I’m going back. I feel a little of what you’re talking about, but I’m a nerd. I like to code. But I’m not dismissing your concern. Because it is one of the reasons I’m making this decision. I’m a professional. I’m not just here to feel good I’m here to do a good job over the course of a career. I think all in, when you think about writing good maintainable, software, learning, staying mentally sharp, and speed put together. Vibe coding could be less effective and maybe even in the aggregate “slower”.

This. Insisting on writing code by hand when LLMs are available is not software engineering in 2026. Engineers find the most cost-effective solution for the problem at hand that meets the requirements.

Because sloppy code and doesn't matter. He wrote he completed it in 1/10th time. That's equivalent to 1/10th the engineers. That is a business win. That is really all that matters in capitalism. The flex is a direct insult to your face. He is shitting on the faces of all software engineers (me included). It is equivalent to saying we don't need you to code anymore. One man can produce 10x the code. So why am i voting him up even though he's shitting on my face? Because what he says is true. I value honesty and people who say things like it is. Yes my identity as a software engineer is getting dismantled before my very eyes. But the solution to this problem isn't some delusional statement about not understanding what he's flexing about. We're not stupid. Everyone on this thread understands his flex. The difference is some people like you don't want to understand it. Like seriously. He literally wrote it was completed in 1/10th of the time and you expect me to believe that YOU don't know what HE is flexing about? Be real. You're not stupid.

I’d be interested to know two things: 1. What’s the job satisfaction like day to day being an engineer on this project? How have they adapted to this way of working? 2. How much did it cost? Work is being done whilst the engineers sleep but if that 6 hours overnight task cost $300 and could have been done by a person in 2 hours is it a real saving?

> 1. What’s the job satisfaction like day to day being an engineer on this project? How have they adapted to this way of working? The job satisfaction is looking at the bank account every time you feel your job sucks.

I am not much understanding the naysayers here. I will do a premise: I don't like where software engineering is heading, at all. I have never been unhappier to work in this field since AI came out. And no, it is not possible to opt out of AI, especially when your teammates are all great engineers whose productivity increased a lot without any drops in quality code-wise (in fact the opposite has happened). You need to keep up. But it's tiring and the fun/interesting parts are disappearing. That being said, it's clear that harness engineering is the most important part of our job and that task is going to take increasingly more of our time. And thus having a glimpse of how an AI company handles it is by any means interesting.

I wonder why we as engineers aren't protesting AI in the same way that artists and people in film and television are. This post should instill the same terror that visual artists feel. If you're a more senior person in tech, this post is effectively saying that a large portion of your skillset is about to become completely worthless. This goes beyond the skills involved in writing the code. Everything that you've learned over years about how to determine whether code is good or bad, and what practices make an engineering team effective is not just obsolete, it's fundamentally counter-productive because it assumes a slow, human-centric process that requires you to actually review and understand the code. Even your ability to mentor junior engineers is now obsolete, because all that experience you've built up is now worthless to them. If this is the approach the industry takes, particularly when combined with a lack of interest in quality from the business (and let's face it, consumers have shown us that they're happy to pay for cheap crap), it's hard to see much of a future for software engineers. You don't need thousands of people with deep technical expertise, you need a handful of manager-types, who will focus on defining product and business requirements and configuring how the AI gets enough context to implement the requirements. Maybe, if we're extremely lucky, there's so much demand for software that total employment doesn't fall off a cliff, but the nature of the work will change so much that many older, more expensive engineers will become unemployable. Those who remain will have to accept that the skills they spend decades developing are now worthless, that younger engineers no longer respect or listen to them, that the business no longer sees them as experts worthy of respect, but old fogies who grew up in a different world. Joe Biden liked to say that a job is more than just a paycheck, it's part of your identity and your sense of self-worth. We're all very used to a certain level of respect (and commensurate remuneration). If you don't think that's true, compare how a software engineer is treated to how a warehouse worker is treated. What happens when we lose that?

What is that protest going to get us? We'll convince or force business leaders to not use a cheaper/better tool and protect our jobs? And nobody else in the world is going to pivot either? And our companies will remain competitive? Software engineers have always adapted to new technologies. New languages, frameworks, native apps, browser apps etc. So far this doesn't seem to be close to completely removing us from the loop. If you are smart, educated, and can adapt, you'll figure it out. The economy has to find some stable equilibrium and it's not a zero sum game. Everyone in the economy getting a paycheck is also a consumer. With no consumers there is no business. The companies who are using AI and become more productive can do more things that before were not profitable but now are. Some of the people who are getting laid off are going to start new businesses and hire people. These things always cycle, and they basically have to. I don't have a crystal ball though.

Individual voices aren't strong enough to drown the marketing machine. Artists and writers are unionized, why they have a more powerful collective voice. Second, there are enough peole for which their jobs are very well paid and too cozy to dare to rock the boat. The economy and job market isn't so hot either at the moment for people to quickly be able to jump ship. Can you even be sure that you find a tech company that isn't jumping head first onto the AI hype train? Even politicians can't have enough of AI in their mouth.

engineers undervalue their own process artists overvalue their own outputs