It's not impossible but it will take time and is easier said than done.
Was writing software really the bottleneck, or are there others? Is Stripe really in that much better a position to compete with other payment rails now that there is AI? Or maybe a new competitor comes out of nowhere and a huge number of businesses switch? The scenario where markets become hyper-competitive because of AI seems a bit dubious.
Not sure about Stripe, but I think it would be extremely dubious for vibe-coded competitors to Uber to serve as real competition like described in the substack post, because the business benefits so much from network effects. A new upstart would not only need to replicate the technical aspects but also the physical vehicle network and years of built-up fraud prevention efforts (including things like rider/driver ratings and features that targeted at edge cases) of the existing incumbent firms.
The threat to the middleman businesses is their elimination. For that to happen, the service providers have to open up APIs for the users' agents' to use directly, so that then those agents effectively become the middlemen.
If that doesn't happen, then the user agents have to deal with the friction, and that works in favor of the middlemen because agents are willing to deal with much more friction than people.
In this scenario, only the rank-and-file friction workers and their management have to worry about being replaced by friction-generating AI; the business as such is safe.
Everything that starts with mass unemployment and don't finish with strikes, riots and the technology being massively regulated can safely be disregarded. If people have to chose between AI and society, they will chose society.
It's important to remember that things like the economy, the market or even money are social constructs which hold because people collectively decide to believe in them. Watch what happens to data centers when the people controlling the electric grids, manufacturing parts, growing the food, or driving the trucks carrying it stop doing so.
People in power know that. They also know they would be collateral damages if it reaches this point. Generally speaking people in power like to stay in power. This power depends on society staying an acceptable choice to most. Except regulations to happen far before AI starts rocking the boat too much.
So how exactly does the article attribute the movements of the market to this Substack post? What is the proof that this was the cause? Journalism usually deals with proof of what it says but I don't see any in articles like this.