> We don't call architects 'vibe architects' even though they copy-paste 4/5th of your next house and use a library of things in their work!
> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for using earth-moving machines instead of a shovel...
> When was the last time you reviewed the machine code produced by a compiler?
Sure, because those are categorically different. You are describing shortcuts of two classes: boilerplate (library of things) and (deterministic/intentional) automation. Vibe coding doesn't use either of those things. The LLM agents involved might use them, but the vibe coder doesn't.
Vibe coding is delegation, which is a completely different class of shortcut or "tool" use. If an architect delegates all their work to interns, directs outcomes based on whims not principals, and doesn't actually know what the interns are delivering, yeah, I think it would be fair to call them a vibe architect.
We didn't have that term before, so we usually just call those people "arrogant pricks" or "terrible bosses". I'm not super familiar but I feel like Steve Jobs was pretty famously that way - thus if he was an engineer, he was a vibe engineer. But don't let this last point detract from the message, which is that you're describing things which are not really even similar to vibe coding.
I do not see LLM coding as another step up on the ladder of programming abstraction.
If your project is in, say, Python, then by using LLMs, you are not writing software in English; you are having an LLM write software for you in Python.
This is much more like delegation of work to someone else, than it is another layer in the machine-code/assembly/C/Python sort of hierarchy.
In my regular day job, I am a project manager. I find LLM coding to be effectively project management. As a project manager, I am free to dive down to whatever level of technical detail I want, but by and large, it is others on the team who actually write the software. If I assign a task, I don't say "I wrote that code", because I didn't; someone else did, even if I directed it.
And then, project management, delegating to the team, is most certainly nondeterministic behavior. Any programmer on the team might come up with a different solution, each of which works. The same programmer might come up with more than one solutions, all of which work.
I don't expect the programmers to be deterministic. I do expect the compiler to be deterministic.
I think you are right in placing emphasis on delegation.
There’s been a hypothesis floating around that I find appealing. Seemingly you can identify two distinct groups of experienced engineers. Manager, delegator, or team lead style senior engineers are broadly pro-AI. The craftsman, wizard, artist, IC style senior engineers are broadly anti-AI.
But coming back to architects, or most professional services and academia to be honest, I do think the term vibe architect as you define it is exactly how the industry works. An underclass of underpaid interns and juniors do the work, hoping to climb higher and position themselves towards the top of the ponzi-like pyramid scheme.
Totally on point, except I'm pretty sure Jobs was not like that. From what I've read he'd be more of a hands on "agentic engineer". Baby-sitting his engineers and designers and steering them.
A bit of a nitpick - that's not what the "eye of the storm" is. In fact, if you perceive RAM prices as leveling off, that would be the "eye of the storm", meaning a brief, deceptive calm surrounded by... storm.
Truly I have seen not even a hint of reason to believe prices would come back down in the near term. Fab allocation is booked years out, and building out new manufacturing capabilities is difficult and slow. Everything I'm seeing points in the same direction: this is only going to keep getting worse for consumers month after month for a long time.
If the current RAM heavy buyers, the AI powerhouses investors, don't get the into a profitable state of business, then sustaining this rhythm "for a long time" becomes impossible. It won't matter much that "fab allocation is booked years out" if the client that expects the goods goes out of business, doesn't it? I, for one, don't find convincing hints that this free AI crazy partying will go on for long, so then what gives?
I think we both agree on that, just on different timelines. I think there's enough VC money to drag this out long enough for it to really hurt. And the longer they do, the more the entire planet becomes dependent on AI companies staying afloat lest the whole economy collapse.
> If the current RAM heavy buyers, the AI powerhouses investors, don't get the into a profitable state of business, then sustaining this rhythm "for a long time" becomes impossible.
Exactly that is the problem with the "pork cycle" we are seeing [1] - there aren't that many manufacturers and ODMs around nowadays for RAM, storage, CPUs and GPUs. The ecosystem was so much more vibrant even 10 years ago. When the AI bubble collapses, it will take the entire world's economy down the drain, and I think that quite a few of the brands we have now will be extinct after this iteration.
> I wish people would stop attributing a quirky/controlling personality
> for me this casts serious shade on the whole article
I think that's healthy wariness. The article seems overall well thought out, but OCD is an extremely common blindspot today, so I don't think it spoils the rest of the advice (which is largely good and spot-on).
Even my primary care doctor, when I told him I'd been diagnosed with OCD causing many disparate kinds of anxiety and depression, said something about "well you want your accountant to have a little OCD for example." I was a little stunned!
I agree, there is some good advice in there. However, this makes the OCD remark stand out even more for me. Bit like a doctor recommending homeopathy or starts talking about flat earth stuff. Getting such a basic thing so wrong, taints everything else.
See, "the good advice" is knowledge I can recognize as such, therefore information I already have. You need a basis of trust accepting any new information. A flat-earther may get Newtonian physics right, but I won't go there to learn about it.
I don't think the OCD section adds much anyway, so I think the article would be greatly improved by removing it.
There are many kinds of OCD! There are zero kinds of OCD that aren't a disorder. A helpful mnemonic is: you could imagine OCD stands for "obsessive compulsive disorder".
> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for using earth-moving machines instead of a shovel...
> When was the last time you reviewed the machine code produced by a compiler?
Sure, because those are categorically different. You are describing shortcuts of two classes: boilerplate (library of things) and (deterministic/intentional) automation. Vibe coding doesn't use either of those things. The LLM agents involved might use them, but the vibe coder doesn't.
Vibe coding is delegation, which is a completely different class of shortcut or "tool" use. If an architect delegates all their work to interns, directs outcomes based on whims not principals, and doesn't actually know what the interns are delivering, yeah, I think it would be fair to call them a vibe architect.
We didn't have that term before, so we usually just call those people "arrogant pricks" or "terrible bosses". I'm not super familiar but I feel like Steve Jobs was pretty famously that way - thus if he was an engineer, he was a vibe engineer. But don't let this last point detract from the message, which is that you're describing things which are not really even similar to vibe coding.