28 pointsby tylerdane10 hours ago8 comments
  • mgh956 hours ago
    Having see what terminal vibecoding looks like (to the point where customers say "fix your app" during renewal conversations), I don't think this is likely to happen. There is definitely selection pressure being applied to SaaS companies and I would not expect people not directly responsible (PMs, sales, etc.) to be willing to accept responsibility for technical outcomes; after all they are product, not software experts.

    It is possible this leads to a decrease in salary (and positions) but I do not believe the social commentary will pan out in the manner the author proposes. The people who most argue for vibe coding will themselves never accept responsibility for the technical outcomes.

    • KolibriFly2 hours ago
      The people saying "anyone can build software now" often seem to mean "anyone can generate code now"... which is not quite the same thing
  • Michelangelo116 hours ago
    Very, very good essay. I'd like to add one thing to the argument. It used to be the case that your software itself could be a sound moat; that's no longer the case except toward the high end, where vibecoding fails due to complexity. Now, sound moats are e.g. your data, your regulatory advantages, your established customer base, etc., and software is increasingly just a fungible component -- increasingly like, say, accounting: a back-office task to tick off.
    • KolibriFly2 hours ago
      I mostly agree, though I'd phrase it slightly differently: software is becoming less of a moat by itself but not necessarily less important
  • KolibriFly2 hours ago
    Yeah, but maybe only for the visible (productized) layer of software
  • 5 hours ago
    undefined
  • xlii5 hours ago
    While entry barrier might be low, the learning curve become more steep.

    E.g. recently I've been porting non-naive app to vibe-code app framework (from engineering managed to product managed).

    While I was doing so I had to answer plenty of implication bearing questions but also ask for a very software engineering like pattern. E.g. I had to plan for MIME types unsupported by vendor or use stubbed adapter for the yet unavailable integration connector.

    I pulled this straight from my head but boy oh boy I don't wish making this decision without any experience whatsoever.

    I'd summarize current situation: building castles on the sand became easier than ever. Good luck with trying to become a tenant there.

  • wavemode3 hours ago
    > Implication 1: Lower entry barrier makes software lower-respect field

    Maybe? This one's kind of subjective. I'm sure there are some people who will feel this way, and many who won't.

    Do you respect artists less, now that you can make AI images?

    As for pay, it seems unlikely to me that the job title of "software engineer" is going to see a significant decrease in median wage as a result of AI. Though there may simply be fewer "software engineer" jobs and more "prompt engineer" jobs.

    > Implication 2: Optionality changes the commitment to software products

    It's not clear to me that the typical decision-making process the average company was using to choose (for example) project management software, is going to be significantly different in the AI era than before. "Let's use JIRA, since that's what everyone else uses."

    Making decisions this way is low-risk, and lower-cost than the token cost of vibe-coding something custom. The analogy to dating apps doesn't work - dating apps reward searching far and wide for something perfect, whereas the business world rewards going with what you know and making decisions quickly.

    > Implication 3: The middle class of software products will disappear

    I don't believe the cost of software creation is approaching zero. People are taking this concept too far and too literally. First of all, obviously there are token costs. And secondly, obviously there is still a time and effort requirement involved in maintaining anything, even via vibe-coding. Most companies have absolutely no reason to prefer to incur these costs rather than simply paying the man his $50/month.

    But thirdly, and probably most importantly, there's the inherent cost of merely being responsible for something. Like I wrote earlier, decisionmakers want to minimize risk. The mere fact of being responsible for something - of it being someone's fault if something goes wrong - is a dire political cost, which most business leaders try to avoid by buying external rather than creating in-house. The SaaS market isn't going anywhere.

    > Implication 4: If you want to win, sell services, not products

    Service automation is a fruit that has already been mostly squeezed by conventional software.

    That is to say - the space of things that traditional software can't already automate, that LLMs would be capable of automating, and that LLMs would be reliable and efficient enough at to significantly move the needle on real productivity - is small.

    (Ironically, software development is one of the few things in that space. Since when you automate software development you can also automate the creation of tests that (at least attempt to) validate the correctness of the software itself. Not so much for legal documents.)

  • ozgrakkurt3 hours ago
    Says the marketing guy
  • npodbielski5 hours ago
    This would probably became very true if we would stay with the current prices of 'AI'.

    Will we? Open AI is not profitable. Anthropic says that they may have profitable quarter. If they will raise prices will it still be the case? If you can 'vibe code your taxes app' but it will require constant fixes every month and those fixes will cost you 50$ in tokens and it will not be bullet proof, does it makes sense anymore? Maybe just pay 50$ for subscription to similar software? Maybe Chinese companies will keep low prices and it will cost 2$ dollars instead of 50, but that only works if you are doing that to 'vibe code' your scheduling/to do app. If you are any serious company you have regulations and GDPA and ISO and you cannot sent you financial and customer company to Chinese deepseek provider.

    And software need constant upkeep. OS update, API changes, libraries get obsolete, build system does not work anymore... etc. This is very apparent for me every time I am doing changes to my Flutter mobile app need an update: I basically need to spin up environment from scratch, then update half of packages, then update all APIs fro those packages because of changes and when I finally do the change, pipeline breaks and I cannot sign the android release. Last time I just gave up on that. Non software people think you can just install Claude and prompt your app. Which is true. But then things break. Data disappear. You do not have backup. Licence changes and you can't use new version of some tool. Binaries got renamed. APIs disappear. Domain is not reachable anymore. And so on and on and on...

    Software companies are forced to use 'AI' too so speed of breaking changes will increase and you either have to pickup on those or pay someone to do that for you regardless if this will be 'AI' provider and tokens usage or SaaS.

    In 90 there were people in my country selling PC parts on every corner. No there is maybe one or two in entire city and I did not visit none in maybe 10 years. There were a thing because you could just buy parts and build your new system. You still can but now you can just order online.

    So sure 'vibe coding' is a thing now but I am not convinced it will be a thing in 10-20 years. Maybe it will be online service that will automatically write an application for you based on specification for few $ but as a user you expecting an outcome and do not want to be bothered by npm and node version necessary for that.

    • simianwords5 hours ago
      I’m curious about the mental model of people who think ai is extremely subsidised. This view is strange because GLM released a few weeks ago and it is confidently better than say GPT 5.

      I think you are in for a rude shock - your expectation that there will come a reckoning where people are forced to content real prices of AI.. will never happen. It won’t.

      • faangguyindia4 hours ago
        It happens because people fail to account for economies of scale. Believing everything scales linearly is major flaw in the ways most people think.
      • npodbielski4 hours ago
        And how you do know that GLM is not subsidised? Maybe Chinese government is burning money to destroy US economy by making them lose money in AI companies that are just furnace burning dollars. Unless you have some compelling argument it is just a speculation.
        • SyneRyder2 hours ago
          It's because GLM 5.2 is offered on many inference providers, including providers in the US. Those companies only make their money by charging for inference, and yet they seem to be doing quite well while charging the exact same prices as Z.AI / GLM.

          In fact, there's a price war where some of the US inference providers are undercutting the pricing of Z.AI's own GLM hosting. Novita & AtlasCloud are both offering 8% and 5% discounts on GLM 5.2 respectively. GMICloud is charging 30% less - but getting so hammered with demand that it only has 80% uptime & 7 tokens per second, so you get what you pay for.

          You can find a list of providers & their pricing through OpenRouter here:

          https://openrouter.ai/z-ai/glm-5.2#providers

        • faangguyindia4 hours ago
          West china has cheap electricity via solar. Satellite images reveal large scale data center build outs. Untill now this electricity did not have much use as this region lacks major connectivity to ports and industrial regions.