That might be true in the short-term, but I'd be very surprised to see that hold for the long-term.

We've had plenty of technology trends in the past that have promised faster development but has later turned out to have problems. Organizations that stick around learn lessons about what works and what doesn't.

If in a year's time organizations aren't feeling severe downsides from all of the unreviewed vibe-coded junk they put into production then maybe the vibe-coders were right. I'll believe that when I see it.

Who approved the vibe coders’ PRs?

> The vibe coders have a key advantage you don’t: they don’t give a fuck. They blow through a task and move onto the next one. Management sees this as progress, and the vibe coders are rewarded.

This is a complete unrealistic assessment. Who do you think vibecoders are? They are yesterday's software developers using today's tools.

The people who manually write their PRs are also not giving a fuck when they break production code with spaghetti code that later has to be thrown out and rewritten. They are the same people.

The key difference is that now their output volume is much greater, and they iterate much faster. They roll out plenty of bullshit, but it also hits the fan much faster and triggers fixes at a higher rate.

People hate on vibecoders because they do exactly what your average developer does but at a much higher rate.

This will invariably be a problem in organizations where tokens, lines of code, PR count etc are the metrics - which happens to be in most places. I do not know if there are metrics or rewards for maintainable code, OR penalty for write code that breaks down and causes product incidents down the line. By then those engineers would have been promoted and moved on to better things.

> You are not steering development anymore.

This hasn't been the case for at least a decade. Long before LLMs.