Saying "surely, everybody does X" is a sure way to be wrong. You're even spectacularly failing at making your own point by acknowledging in the very same comment that there are, in fact, people not doing it. Some people are different from you, deal with it.

That being said, it's true than we can assume most of new software are generated. No need for hyperbole on that. An interesting fact is that it makes grandfather's concern moot: people who are generating their code don't care much if a dependency goes unmaintained, they can have it replaced by an other one in matter of minutes.

There's an other objection to openai-cli we could raise, though: why use a generalist developer tool, containing probably hundred of features we don't need, when we could make a bespoke specialized version, perfectly fit to us, in like 25 minutes? I can get that there are audiences where this would not even come to mind to the users, but we're talking about a developer tool, here. The value of that is questionable. And ironically, those who might from benefit it the most are those who don't want to generate their code.

This is not unique problem to vibecoding. Google was killing products before LLM and forcing you into deprecation churn loop for years. Problem is companies without strategy trying things and then moving to next shiny thing.

I am still salty about anthropic killing Claude design in December.

There is a difference between wanton "vibecoding" and AI-assisted coding.

The latter still gives you many-X productivity improvement while the quality is pretty close to handwritten code.

LLMs are still not good enough where you can unleash it upon a huge codebase and get good results btw. Quality goes to shit once a context uses up around 50k-100k tokens. That's often only enough for one feature change and whatever validation the LLM wants to do for it.

It's fair to say that most new software is written with AI help, but that doesn't mean someone just prompted a few things and pressed deploy.

Yeah, but then you get the user's side. Will users really trust and rely on software that was vibe coded in an afternoon? Maybe for games, but for something like a CLI you would depend on - do you want to depend on someone's vibe coded in an afternoon project?

> Who in their right mind would take a month to create an MVP when a bot can spit it out in an afternoon

The people who need something more than an MVP, I would suppose. Bot sure does spit out a prototype faster than any human can, but actually building on that dogshit prototype becomes slower than someone with a clue writing by hand.

While I agree with the premise, I would argue with the conclusion. Yes agents can and do code fast. But if you're integrating software in business where people work in some patterns, more often than not there are "real life" happening. You learn that only by operating a system long enough to know these things. And competence accumulates, and the value of provider increases with the learned patterns. I think many devs live in tech world which is sometimes detached from physical world, world where people actually has to do some work, which takes time and system working in technical sense, doesnt work in practical sense.

This type of comments is making me insane.

There are different ways of using AI. Experienced software developers can easily still test their "vibe coded" app for most common bugs.

https://xkcd.com/1483/

>Eventually all the people who hate this kind of thing are going to be dead, and the ones who use it are going to be in control.

The West has fallen.

I'm so curious what you do when the providers go down. Do you tell your boss you can't fix the incident because your token quota is out?