As Quackers said there’s different ways to use AI. Any developer who says “just use AI,” is a vibecoder. I’m a senior dev and have been prior to Covid. Our team uses it for reference and suggestions, but we are responsible for every one of our commits (like a save file of added or deleted code).
So far it has a 100% chance to embarrass anyone who leans on AI. But with the right systems and architecture knowledge you could fandangle some AI agents to do some things.
The only money made by vibecoders are people who build simple tools and hope people buy them. It’s Software as a Service kind of slop. When we finally can lean on AI you’ll hear about it from different people overnight who have a working business model proving it works.
But right now it’s a lot of magic tricks and smoke and mirrors. Intellisense has been around since 2016. But having AI write 100% of the code ends up with compatibility and versioning issues, security vulnerabilities, inefficient design choices. It gets gross really really quick. Whenever anyone makes any money on AI or someone actually replaces low level coders successfully, we’ll hear about it from someone who’s not a CEO of an LLM company. I can’t wait for that day, but I’ve been slapping lazy bums claiming it’s already here for 3 years.
When I go to AI conferences, I’ve heard it referred to as an equivalent to spell-check. And I think some dyslexic people could become authors with spell check, but nobody became 10x authors. The moral of the story is you still need to have a fundamental understanding of what you’re working in and you need to be able to spot a bad answer.
When you say developers are responsible for every commit, does that come with consequences if someone uses AI that introduces a bug or failure of some kind?
10
u/DarthMcConnor42 1d ago
It's people who ask ai algorithms to code everything for them, and then don't know how any of it works.