I've experienced the following sequence more than once at work, and I remain baffled by it each time:

- Receive a huge vibecoded PR for complicated new feature.

- Complain that this needs some design doc to figure out the right approach first.

- Author says no need for design doc, easier to have vibed implementation and discuss the concrete code instead of abstract document.

- I disagree (obviously), but review the PR with feedback along the lines: this entire approach is flawed, throw this out and start over.

- Author gets defensive, says "but this is already working and ready, let's just merge".

- I tell them there is no chance in hell this is getting merged. They go sulk to their manager that I'm not interested in helping them launch.

> It is surprisingly different to what I'm used to from senior devs, which behave like they always suspect their own work is flawed and half assed

I never trust my own code. And one of the motivations of trying to be fluent with my editor, is to be able to quickly look at it when a bug is reported. I also don’t trust another person with their description of their code. Any surprise, and I’m looking at the source if it’s a available.

I agree it's not "entitlement" specifically but there's something there. I guess by now everyone has experienced that type of person that "tries to help" by copy/pasting a bunch of AI slop and expecting you to work through the cognitive load of validating it.

The original post sums it pretty well, such big output inherently meant big effort, which was a proxy for good faith. Now that's gone.

> 'I care about building while others lose time in details'

Them's fightin' words.

A person who says that to me - I ban them from... well, actually, I don't believe in banning people from platforms. Let's say I put them in my basket of deplorables.