Thinh Dang

Experienced Fintech Software Engineer Driving High-Performance Solutions

The software development landscape is in the midst of a seismic shift, driven by the exponential progress of generative artificial intelligence. At the epicenter of this transformation is a new, provocative, and intensely debated concept: “Vibe Coding.” Coined in early 2025, this term has become a flashpoint for discussions about the future of programming, the role of the developer, and the very nature of creating software. It represents a departure from traditional, line-by-line coding, advocating for a more fluid, conversational, and AI-collaborative workflow. However, its rapid ascent has been met with both fervent enthusiasm and profound skepticism, creating a schism in the development community. To understand the opportunities and perils of this new paradigm, one must first dissect its origins, deconstruct its contested definitions, and take the pulse of a community grappling with its implications.

The Dawn of Vibe Coding: Defining a New Development Paradigm

The Karpathy Doctrine: The Original “Vibe”

The term “Vibe Coding” entered the lexicon in February 2025, introduced by Andrej Karpathy, a renowned AI researcher and co-founder of OpenAI. In a widely circulated social media post, he described a novel approach to programming: “There’s a new kind of coding I call ‘vibe coding’, where you fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists”. This initial definition was not about creating enterprise-grade, mission-critical software. Instead, Karpathy framed it as a conversational, almost passive interaction with an AI coding assistant, where he would use voice commands to describe his intent and let the AI handle the implementation. “It’s not really coding,” he wrote, “I just see things, say things, run things, and copy-paste things, and it mostly works”.

Crucially, Karpathy’s original context was one of experimentation and low-stakes creation. He explicitly positioned this method as “not too bad for throwaway weekend projects” and found it “quite amusing”. This framing is fundamental to understanding the subsequent discourse, as he readily acknowledged its limitations. He noted that the AI tools were not always capable of fixing their own bugs, often requiring him to experiment with seemingly unrelated changes until a problem was resolved.

Karpathy provided a tangible example of this philosophy with his first “end-to-end vibe coded app,” MenuGen, a tool for generating stylized menu images. In his write-up, he was unequivocal about the process: he did not write any of the code directly and admitted he did not know how the application worked in a conventional sense. This project perfectly embodied his doctrine, showcasing both the exhilarating speed of the initial prototyping phase—where a visually appealing frontend materialized quickly, giving the feeling of being “80% done”—and the immediate, frustrating hurdles of real-world implementation, such as dealing with deprecated APIs, rate limiting, and out-of-date documentation that the AI partner hallucinated. Karpathy’s exploration was that of a curious expert pushing the boundaries of a new tool, fully aware of its current shortcomings.

The Willison Distinction: Responsible AI-Assisted Programming vs. “Pure” Vibe Coding

As the term “Vibe Coding” gained traction, its meaning began to drift, becoming a catch-all for any form of AI-assisted development. This semantic creep prompted a critical clarification from programmer and writer Simon Willison, who argued forcefully that “Vibe coding is not the same thing as writing code with the help of LLMs!”. Willison sought to draw a bright line between a potentially reckless practice and a powerful professional methodology.

According to Willison, “pure” Vibe Coding, in the spirit of Karpathy’s original experiment, is the act of building software with a Large Language Model (LLM) without reviewing the code it writes. It is the literal embodiment of “forget that the code even exists.” This is a mode of creation where the human developer cedes comprehension and oversight to the AI, accepting its output based on whether the resulting application “mostly works.”

In stark contrast lies the practice of responsible AI-assisted programming, which Willison equates with professional software engineering. This approach demands rigorous human oversight, critical thinking, and accountability. He articulated a “golden rule for production-quality AI-assisted programming” that has since become a cornerstone of the debate: “I won’t commit any code to my repository if I couldn’t explain exactly what it does to somebody else”. Under this definition, if a developer uses an AI to generate code but then meticulously reviews it, tests it, and fully understands its function and implications, they are not Vibe Coding. They are simply using an advanced tool to augment the craft of software development. This distinction is the intellectual core of the entire Vibe Coding discourse, separating a high-speed, high-risk experimental technique from a disciplined, production-oriented workflow.

Community Pulse: Hype, Hostility, and Historical Parallels

The emergence of Vibe Coding has elicited a deeply polarized response from the wider developer community, particularly on platforms like Hacker News and Reddit. The discourse reveals a fundamental tension between those who see a revolutionary tool and those who see a dangerous trend.

On one side, the skeptics and critics view the term with suspicion and often disdain. Many experienced engineers dismiss Vibe Coding as a pejorative for “script kiddies”—individuals who use complex tools without understanding them—or as a hollow marketing buzzword concocted by AI companies to sell their products. Their primary concern is that it promotes a culture of unaccountability and a disregard for code quality, leading to the proliferation of unmaintainable, insecure, and inefficient software “slop”. The sentiment, “Vibe coding is all fun and games until you have to vibe debug,” encapsulates the fear that the short-term gains in speed will be paid for with long-term pain in maintenance and troubleshooting.

On the other side, proponents and pragmatists see Vibe Coding as a legitimate and powerful new capability. They argue it is an exceptional tool for rapid prototyping, allowing ideas to be tested in days or hours instead of weeks. It empowers developers to build auxiliary tooling and small, useful applications that might otherwise languish on a backlog forever. Furthermore, many see it as a revolutionary educational tool that dramatically flattens the steep initial learning curve of programming, potentially bringing millions of new creators into the field. Some view it as the next logical step in the history of abstraction in programming, akin to the leap from assembly language to high-level compiled languages.

This debate does not exist in a vacuum. Commentators frequently draw parallels to previous technological shifts and industry trends. The promises and perils of Vibe Coding are often compared to the Rapid Application Development (RAD) movement of the 1990s, the outsourcing crazes of the 2000s, and the more recent rise of no-code and low-code platforms. These historical analogues suggest that the core tensions—democratization versus quality, speed versus rigor—are recurring themes in the evolution of software engineering.

Regardless of the heated debate, the practice is gaining a significant foothold in the industry. A key data point from March 2025 revealed that 25% of startups in Y Combinator’s Winter 2025 batch had codebases that were 95% AI-generated. This indicates that in high-growth, speed-obsessed environments like the startup world, the productivity gains offered by this new mode of development are too compelling to ignore.

The intensity of this debate stems from a fundamental misunderstanding rooted in the term’s “semantic drift.” Karpathy introduced “Vibe Coding” with a narrow, experimental scope, but the term was so evocative that it was quickly adopted by the broader industry to describe any form of advanced AI-driven development. This created a situation where two groups were often arguing past each other. Experienced developers recoiled at the idea of applying Karpathy’s explicitly “irresponsible” method to professional software engineering, while AI companies and evangelists used the term to market a future of hyper-efficient, AI-augmented workflows. Simon Willison’s intervention was a crucial attempt to resolve this conflict by re-establishing the original, nuanced definition.

At its heart, this new paradigm represents a philosophical shift in the act of creation. Traditional programming is fundamentally about specifying the “how”—the explicit, line-by-line instructions a computer must follow. Vibe Coding, in contrast, is about specifying the “what”—the desired outcome, the user’s intent, described in natural language. The “how” is delegated to the AI. This is precisely why the concept is so empowering for non-technical founders and product managers, who are experts in the “what” but not the “how”. It is also the source of its greatest risk: the “how” generated by the AI may be insecure or unmaintainable, but because the “what” is achieved (the app “mostly works”), these critical flaws can be easily overlooked, creating a debt that will inevitably come due.

The Vibe Coder’s Toolkit: An In-Depth Look at Cursor

The theoretical concept of Vibe Coding requires a practical vessel, an environment where the fluid, conversational exchange between human and AI can flourish. The tool that has most aggressively and successfully positioned itself as this vessel is Cursor, an AI-first Integrated Development Environment (IDE). By deeply weaving AI capabilities into every facet of the coding workflow, Cursor provides a tangible platform for developers looking to “give in to the vibes” and accelerate their development process. An analysis of its architecture, features, and market position reveals a deliberate strategy to not just assist developers, but to fundamentally reshape their interaction with code.

Anatomy of an AI-First IDE

Cursor’s core architectural decision is both pragmatic and brilliant: it is a proprietary IDE built as a fork of Microsoft’s open-source Visual Studio Code. This strategy immediately eliminates the steepest barrier to adoption. Developers can migrate to Cursor and, with a single click, import all of their existing VS Code extensions, themes, and keybindings, making the environment feel instantly familiar. Upon this familiar foundation, Cursor layers a suite of powerful, deeply integrated AI features that set it apart from simple plugins like GitHub Copilot.

  • Codebase-Aware Context: This is arguably Cursor’s most significant advantage. Unlike standalone chatbots that require users to manually paste code for context, Cursor automatically indexes the entire project codebase. It can understand relationships between files, locate definitions, and reference documentation and even git history when generating responses or code. A developer can ask, “Where is the user authentication logic handled?” and receive an answer based on a holistic understanding of the project, a capability that dramatically reduces the friction of navigating unfamiliar or large codebases.
  • Agent Mode: This feature is the most direct embodiment of the Vibe Coding philosophy of delegation. The Cursor Agent can take a high-level natural language instruction and execute it end-to-end. This includes writing code across multiple files, automatically generating and running terminal commands (with a confirmation prompt for safety), and even detecting linting errors and attempting to fix them in a loop until the code is clean. It allows a developer to operate at a higher level of abstraction, managing a task rather than executing every step.
  • Predictive & Multi-Line Editing (Tab, tab, tab): Powered by its own proprietary models, Cursor features an advanced autocomplete that goes far beyond single-line suggestions. It predicts the developer’s intent based on recent changes and can suggest complex, multi-line edits or refactors across an entire block of code. These suggestions can be accepted with a simple press of the Tab key. Testimonials from engineers at OpenAI and Notion have described this feature as “magic” that makes it feel like you can “code at the speed of thought”.
  • Natural Language Editing (Ctrl+K): This command provides a direct interface for manipulating code via prompts. A developer can highlight a function and instruct the AI to “Refactor this to use async/await,” or place the cursor in a blank space and ask it to “Generate a React component for a login form with email and password validation.” The AI performs the edit or generation directly in the file, maintaining a seamless workflow.

The Engine Room: Models and Capabilities

Cursor’s intelligence is not derived from a single source. It employs a sophisticated multi-model strategy, positioning itself as an intelligent interface to the world’s leading AI systems. This approach provides both power and flexibility to the developer.

  • Multi-Model Ecosystem: Cursor is powered by a “mix of purpose-built and frontier models”. It offers users a choice between various LLMs from the major AI labs, including OpenAI (GPT-4o, GPT-4.5 Preview, o1), Anthropic (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus), and Google (Gemini 2.5 Pro and Flash). This allows developers to select the best model for a specific task, hedging against the weaknesses of any single provider.
  • Model Specialization and Traits: The platform provides guidance on the characteristics of each model, enabling a more nuanced workflow. For instance, the documentation describes Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro as “Careful and precise,” while Anthropic’s Claude 3.7 Sonnet is “Powerful but eager to make changes”. A savvy developer might use the “eager” model for rapid, creative generation of a new UI component, and then switch to the “careful” model to refactor the underlying business logic with greater precision.
  • Technical Power: The available models boast impressive technical specifications, with context windows ranging from 60,000 to over 1 million tokens. A larger context window is critical for the AI’s ability to understand and reason about large, complex codebases, directly impacting the quality of its output. The platform’s pricing reflects these capabilities, with different costs associated with different models and usage tiers (“Normal Mode” for standard requests and “Max Mode” for more intensive tasks).
  • Proprietary Intelligence: In addition to these third-party models, Cursor leverages its own proprietary models, trained on “billions of datapoints,” to power unique features like the predictive Tab, tab, tab completion. This indicates a hybrid strategy of building custom, specialized AI for core user experience features while integrating general-purpose frontier models for broader reasoning and generation tasks.

The Developer Experience: Adoption, Praise, and Pitfalls

Cursor’s AI-first approach has been met with widespread enthusiasm in the developer community, translating into rapid adoption and significant financial backing. However, its journey has not been without challenges.

  • Industry Acclaim and Adoption: The editor has garnered glowing testimonials from engineers at influential tech companies, including OpenAI, Google, Instacart, Figma, and Notion. A common refrain is that Cursor represents a significant leap forward from previous tools, with some users reporting a “2x improvement over Copilot” and describing it as an indispensable “necessity” in their daily workflow.
  • Explosive Growth and Valuation: This positive market reception is mirrored in the company’s financial success. Anysphere, Cursor’s parent company, has raised staggering amounts of capital, with funding rounds in 2025 propelling its valuation to $2.5 billion and subsequently to $9 billion, signaling immense investor confidence in the future of AI-native development environments.
  • Addressing Enterprise Concerns: Recognizing that professional use requires trust, Cursor has implemented key enterprise-grade features. It offers a “Privacy Mode” that ensures user code is never stored on remote servers without consent and has achieved SOC 2 certification, an industry-standard security compliance framework.
  • Pitfalls and Controversies: The path of rapid innovation is rarely smooth. Cursor experienced a notable public relations issue when one of its front-line AI support bots “hallucinated” a new, restrictive licensing policy that prohibited using a single license on multiple devices. This caused an uproar in the community before the company issued a retraction, clarifying it was an error by the bot. Additionally, the subscription cost for the Pro plan has created friction for some users, leading to the emergence of a small ecosystem of unofficial tools and scripts designed to reset the free trial period, highlighting a tension between the tool’s perceived value and its price point.

The success of Cursor is not merely due to its ability to generate code. Many tools can do that. Its true innovation lies in the deep integration of AI into a holistic, familiar development environment. By minimizing the friction of context-switching, manual file management, and command-line operations, Cursor creates a seamless workflow that allows a developer to stay in a state of creative flow, which is the very essence of the Vibe Coding ideal.

Furthermore, the decision to offer a suite of models from different providers is a shrewd strategic move. It positions Cursor as an indispensable aggregator and user experience layer, insulating it from the commoditization of the underlying LLMs. Its value proposition is not tied to the supremacy of any single model but to the power of the workflow it enables. This demonstrates a profound understanding that the long-term defensible moat in AI development tools will be built on superior user experience and workflow integration, not on exclusive access to a particular generative engine.

Vibe Coding in the Methodological Multiverse: A Comparative Analysis

No development practice exists in isolation. To fully grasp the significance of Vibe Coding, it must be situated within the broader landscape of established software development methodologies. By comparing and contrasting it with frameworks like Agile, Rapid Application Development (RAD), and Pair Programming, its unique contributions, philosophical alignments, and points of tension become clear. This analysis reveals that Vibe Coding is not a complete, self-contained methodology but rather a powerful and volatile technique that acts as a catalyst, amplifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the frameworks with which it is combined.

Metric Traditional Waterfall Agile (e.g., Scrum) Rapid Application Development (RAD) Vibe Coding
Core Philosophy Plan-driven, sequential Value-driven, iterative Speed-driven, prototype-focused Intent-driven, AI-collaborative
Development Cycle Linear, single-pass Short, fixed-length sprints Multiple, rapid iterations Fluid, conversational
Flexibility Low; changes are costly High; embraces change High; adapts to feedback Very High; fluid and prompt-based
User Involvement Minimal; primarily at start and end Continuous collaboration High; frequent feedback on prototypes High; user intent drives generation
Ideal Use Case Well-defined, stable projects Complex projects with evolving needs Small-to-medium projects needing speed Rapid prototyping, MVPs, non-critical tools
Primary Risk Inability to adapt to change Scope creep, unclear end-state Technical debt, scalability issues Security flaws, poor maintainability

Vibe Coding vs. Agile: A Symbiotic but Tense Relationship

Agile methodologies, born from a desire for flexibility and responsiveness, share a significant amount of philosophical DNA with Vibe Coding.30

  • Synergies: The alignment is strongest with several core Agile principles. Vibe Coding is a powerful enabler of “responding to change over following a plan.” When requirements shift mid-sprint, a developer can articulate the new needs in a natural language prompt and receive updated code almost instantly, drastically accelerating the team’s ability to adapt.11 It supercharges the “inspect and adapt” cycle central to frameworks like Scrum. Teams can generate functional prototypes for Sprint Review meetings in a matter of hours, facilitating richer, more immediate feedback from stakeholders and compressing the “build-measure-learn” loop that is vital for product discovery.2 Vibe Coding can also deepen “customer collaboration” by empowering non-technical team members, such as Product Owners or business analysts, to create initial mockups or code snippets directly from their vision, making cross-functional teams more potent.34
  • Frictions: Despite these synergies, Vibe Coding creates significant tension with other, equally important Agile tenets. The principle of “continuous attention to technical excellence and good design” is often fundamentally at odds with the “mostly works” quality of AI-generated code, which can lack structure and accumulate into a “jumbled mess”.35 The promise of maintaining a “sustainable pace” is also threatened; the initial, exhilarating burst of speed can mask the rapid accumulation of technical debt, which will inevitably slow future development to a crawl, making the pace unsustainable.11 While Vibe Coding produces “working software,” the fact that the developers may not fully comprehend its inner workings creates a black box, violating the spirit of transparency and collective ownership that underpins successful Agile teams.

Vibe Coding vs. Rapid Application Development (RAD): An Evolutionary Leap

Rapid Application Development (RAD) emerged in the 1980s and 90s as a reaction against rigid, plan-driven models, prioritizing speed and iterative prototyping—a historical precursor to many of the ideas now associated with Vibe Coding. The parallels are so strong that they are frequently noted in community discussions.

  • Shared DNA: Both methodologies champion minimal upfront planning, rapid iteration, and tight feedback loops with users and stakeholders. The goal in both RAD and Vibe Coding is to get a functional prototype into hands as quickly as possible to validate ideas and guide the next cycle of development.
  • Key Differences: The distinction lies in the engine of that speed. In RAD, acceleration is achieved through a human-centric process that leverages reusable components, visual development tools, and structured workshops. The developer is still the primary artisan, simply equipped with better tools to work faster. In Vibe Coding, the acceleration comes from AI generation. The human’s role shifts from builder to director, articulating intent and allowing the AI to perform the construction. This leads to a crucial difference in the nature of the output. A prototype built with RAD tools is generally understood by its human creator. A prototype generated through Vibe Coding may be a black box, where the creator understands the
    what (the intent) but not the how (the implementation).

Vibe Coding as AI Pair Programming: The Brilliant, Unreliable Intern

One of the most powerful analogies for understanding Vibe Coding is to view it as a new form of pair programming, where the AI serves as the second developer at the workstation.

  • Comparing Roles: In traditional pair programming, two developers share a single task, typically adopting the roles of a “driver,” who actively writes the code, and a “navigator,” who reviews each line, catches errors, and thinks about the broader architectural direction. These roles are fluid and often swapped to maintain engagement and share knowledge. In AI pair programming, the roles are more fixed. The human developer is almost always the navigator, providing the high-level strategic direction through a prompt. The AI is the driver, executing the instructions with incredible speed.
  • The Nature of the Partner: The crucial difference lies in the partner’s nature. A human partner brings a unique blend of experience, intuition, and common sense. The AI partner, as famously described in the context of Vibe Coding, is akin to a “summer intern who believes in conspiracy theories” and “the world’s best software architect” simultaneously. This captures its paradoxical duality: it possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of programming languages, APIs, and algorithms drawn from its vast training data (the architect), but it lacks true understanding, context, and common sense. It can “hallucinate” incorrect information, use deprecated libraries, or make bizarre logical errors that no human, not even an intern, would make. This makes the collaborative dynamic fundamentally different and requires a unique style of management and oversight from the human navigator.

Ultimately, the defining characteristic that separates Vibe Coding from all prior methodologies is its abstraction of implementation comprehension. Agile, RAD, and Pair Programming all operate on the foundational, often unstated, assumption that the developers understand the code they are creating. Vibe Coding, in its purest form, explicitly discards this assumption. This is what makes it so revolutionary, enabling non-coders to create and experienced developers to prototype at unprecedented speeds. It is also what makes it so dangerous, risking the creation of fragile, unmaintainable systems. The entire debate hinges on whether abstracting away comprehension is a sustainable path to building the robust, reliable software that powers our world.

The Long-Term Ledger: Risks, Rewards, and the Future of Development

The allure of Vibe Coding lies in its promise of immediate, dramatic productivity gains. However, this speed comes with a significant, often hidden, cost. Adopting this workflow without discipline and foresight can lead to severe long-term consequences that threaten a project’s maintainability, security, and scalability. A critical evaluation of these risks is essential for any individual or organization considering a move toward AI-driven development. The most prudent path forward involves understanding this long-term ledger and recognizing that the developer’s role is not being eliminated, but profoundly transformed.

The High-Interest Loan: Technical Debt, Maintainability, and Scalability

Vibe Coding, when practiced without rigorous oversight, is a mechanism for accumulating technical debt at an accelerated rate. Prioritizing speed over structure is akin to taking out a high-interest loan against the future health of the codebase.

  • Symptoms of Vibe-Induced Debt: This debt manifests in several distinct ways. Because the AI’s output can vary based on subtle changes in prompting, the codebase often develops inconsistent patterns and a lack of unified architectural vision, resulting in what developers describe as “spaghetti code” or “vibe-coded messes”. Documentation, a cornerstone of maintainable software, becomes sparse or non-existent as the workflow shifts from explaining code to engineering prompts.
  • Lifecycle Impact: The consequences of this debt ripple through the entire project lifecycle. Maintenance costs skyrocket as developers spend more time deciphering opaque, AI-generated logic than implementing new features. Onboarding new team members becomes a monumental challenge, as there is no clear structure or documentation to guide them. Paradoxically, the initial velocity gains are eventually eroded and overtaken by the friction of working within a brittle, poorly understood system.
  • Scalability Bottlenecks: AI models, optimized to produce functional code quickly, are not inherently designed to produce performant or scalable code. They are unlikely to select efficient algorithms, write optimized database queries, or implement architectural patterns designed for growth unless explicitly and expertly prompted to do so. This can lead to severe performance degradation as user load or data volume increases, creating an artificial ceiling on business growth and potentially forcing costly, full-scale rewrites to overcome these limitations. A project that is heavily vibe-coded without expert human intervention risks being born as a “legacy” system—difficult to understand, modify, and maintain from its very first day.

Security by Omission: The Silent Killers in AI-Generated Code

Perhaps the most critical long-term risk of unmanaged Vibe Coding is the introduction of severe security vulnerabilities. AI models are trained to complete tasks and generate plausible code; they are not trained to be security experts.

  • Systemic Vulnerabilities: This leads to a phenomenon that can be described as “security by omission”.50 The AI-generated code might be perfectly functional for the requested task but quietly omit crucial security controls. Common vulnerabilities that consistently appear in vibe-coded applications include improper or missing input validation (opening the door to injection attacks), generic error handling that exposes sensitive system information, the use of outdated or known-vulnerable third-party libraries, and even the hardcoding of API keys and other secrets that were present in its training data.
  • Real-World Consequences: These are not theoretical risks. Reports have cited real-world examples of SaaS applications built with AI tools coming under immediate attack due to these vulnerabilities.35 One analysis pointed to a shocking 40% higher rate of secret exposure (e.g., API keys committed to public repositories) in projects that used AI assistants.50
  • The Non-Expert Risk: The danger is compounded by Vibe Coding’s democratization of software creation. When non-technical users are empowered to generate applications without any understanding of fundamental security principles, they create systemic risk for their organizations. They do not know what they do not know, and cannot prompt for security controls they are unaware of, leading to the unintentional deployment of insecure systems.36

The Evolving Engineer: From Coder to AI Orchestrator

The rise of Vibe Coding does not signal the end of the software engineer. Instead, it heralds a profound transformation of the developer’s role. Projections suggest that by 2030, the day-to-day work of a developer will involve far less manual, line-by-line coding and far more high-level strategy, design, and supervision. The developer’s role is shifting from that of a “code technician” to an “AI orchestrator” and “quality reviewer”.

  • The New Skill Set: In this new paradigm, a different set of skills becomes paramount.
    • Advanced Prompt Engineering: The ability to articulate complex requirements, constraints, and desired outcomes in a way that elicits high-quality, secure, and performant code from an AI will be a core competency.
    • Architectural Guardrails: Developers will be responsible for defining the “sandbox” in which the AI operates. This means establishing strict architectural standards, coding patterns, and security policies that guide the AI’s output and prevent it from making poor decisions.
    • Critical Review and Curation: The human will be the final arbiter of quality. This requires a deep understanding of software engineering principles to effectively audit AI-generated code for correctness, efficiency, and security, treating every AI suggestion as a draft from a talented but fallible junior developer.
  • Impact on the Job Market: This evolution will likely reshape the software development job market. The ability to quickly generate simple applications and internal tools may put downward pressure on entry-level positions focused on routine coding tasks. The market may bifurcate, with high demand for two key roles: the high-level “AI Orchestrators” who can effectively manage AI-driven development at a product level, and the deep “Systems Engineers” who build and maintain the complex platforms and infrastructure that AI itself runs on. For the individual developer, the greatest risk is skill erosion—becoming so reliant on the AI for implementation that fundamental programming knowledge atrophies, leaving them unable to debug or build without the AI’s assistance. The most valuable skill for the future developer will be the ability to define constraints. Their primary job will shift from creating logic to creating the scaffolding and rules that guide a powerful but chaotic generative AI, ensuring it operates productively and safely.

Conclusion

Vibe Coding has emerged as one of the most transformative and polarizing concepts in modern software development. It represents a fundamental shift from a paradigm of manual implementation to one of conversational intent, where the developer’s primary role evolves from writing code to directing an AI that writes code. This evolution, supercharged by AI-first IDEs like Cursor, offers unprecedented gains in speed and accessibility, empowering both novices and experts to translate ideas into functional software at a velocity previously unimaginable. As evidenced by its rapid adoption in the startup ecosystem, the productivity benefits for prototyping and building Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) are undeniable.

However, this report has demonstrated that the path of Vibe Coding is fraught with significant peril. When practiced without discipline—the “pure” form of accepting AI-generated code without full comprehension—it becomes a high-speed conduit for accumulating technical debt, introducing critical security vulnerabilities, and creating unmaintainable, black-box systems. The initial acceleration gives way to a long-term slowdown as teams become mired in debugging and refactoring code they do not truly understand. The discourse within the developer community reflects this tension, with valid concerns about quality, accountability, and the potential erosion of fundamental engineering skills.

The most viable and valuable path forward is not a wholesale replacement of traditional development but a sophisticated, hybrid integration. The best practices illuminated through the LiveKit case study point to a future where developers act as expert “AI Orchestrators.” In this role, they leverage Vibe Coding for what it does best—rapidly generating scaffolding, boilerplate, and initial drafts—while imposing rigorous architectural guardrails, performing meticulous code reviews, and applying their own deep expertise to the most complex and critical components of the system. The developer’s value shifts from the tactical execution of writing lines of code to the strategic definition of constraints, the curation of AI output, and the ultimate responsibility for the quality and security of the final product.

Vibe Coding is neither a panacea nor a mere fad. It is a powerful, volatile catalyst that is forcing a re-evaluation of long-held development practices. For organizations and individuals who embrace it pragmatically, treating AI as a brilliant but fallible partner that requires expert human guidance, it unlocks new frontiers of creativity and efficiency. For those who “fully give in to the vibes” without a foundation of engineering discipline, it risks becoming a fast track to building the legacy systems of tomorrow, today. The choice is not whether to use AI in development, but how to do so responsibly.

References

  1. Vibe coding - Wikipedia, accessed June 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding
  2. What is Vibe Coding? IBM, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/vibe-coding
  3. The Rise of Vibe Coding: Beyond the Hype and the Hate - Codemotion, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.codemotion.com/magazine/ai-ml/vibe-coding/
  4. Not all AI-assisted programming is vibe coding (but vibe coding rocks), accessed June 21, 2025, https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/19/vibe-coding/
  5. Why ‘Vibe Coding’ Makes Me Want to Throw Up? : r/programming, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1jdht20/why_vibe_coding_makes_me_want_to_throw_up/
  6. Vibe coding MenuGen karpathy, accessed June 21, 2025, https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/vibe-coding-menugen/
  7. Vibe Coding Is Overrated - Hacker News, accessed June 21, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43878930
  8. Karpathy’s ‘Vibe Coding’ Movement Considered Harmful : r/programming - Reddit, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1jms5sv/karpathys_vibe_coding_movement_considered_harmful/
  9. What is vibe coding? How creators are building software with no coding knowledge Hacker News, accessed June 21, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43218410
  10. This perfectly explains the hate towards vibe coders : r/programminghumor - Reddit, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghumor/comments/1jk0ncr/this_perfectly_explains_the_hate_towards_vibe/
  11. Is Vibe Coding Agile or Merely a Hype? Scrum.org, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/vibe-coding-agile-or-merely-hype
  12. “Vibe Coding” Is A Stupid Trend - YouTube, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ePiGthZq2w
  13. Benefits of Vibe Software Development For Agile Teams - DhiWise, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.dhiwise.com/post/benefits-of-vibe-software-development-for-agile-teams
  14. Read a software engineering blog if you think vibe coding is the future : r/vibecoding - Reddit, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/vibecoding/comments/1kprxpl/read_a_software_engineering_blog_if_you_think/
  15. “Vibe Coding” vs. Reality Hacker News, accessed June 21, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43448432
  16. Vibe Coding vs. Traditional Coding: A Deep Dive into Key Differences - Nucamp, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.nucamp.co/blog/vibe-coding-vibe-coding-vs-traditional-coding-a-deep-dive-into-key-differences
  17. Vibe Coding vs Traditional Development: Revolutionize Your Software - Trickle AI, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.trickle.so/blog/vibe-coding-vs-traditional-development
  18. Replit — What is Vibe Coding? How To Vibe Your App to Life, accessed June 21, 2025, https://blog.replit.com/what-is-vibe-coding
  19. Vibe coding is rewriting the rules of technology - Freethink, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.freethink.com/artificial-intelligence/vibe-coding
  20. Vibe Coding is for PMs – Alt + E S V - RedMonk, accessed June 21, 2025, https://redmonk.com/rstephens/2025/04/18/vibe-coding-is-for-pms/
  21. The Future of Vibe Coding: How AI-Driven Development Could …, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.nucamp.co/blog/vibe-coding-the-future-of-vibe-coding-how-aidriven-development-could-transform-programming-by-2030
  22. en.wikipedia.org, accessed June 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursor_(code_editor)
  23. Cursor - The AI Code Editor, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.cursor.com/
  24. Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game - Daily.dev, accessed June 21, 2025, https://daily.dev/blog/cursor-ai-everything-you-should-know-about-the-new-ai-code-editor-in-one-place
  25. What is Cursor AI? Everything You Need to Know About the AI-Powered Code Editor, accessed June 21, 2025, https://uibakery.io/blog/what-is-cursor-a
  26. Guide to Cursor Software.com, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.software.com/ai-index/tools/cursor
  27. Features Cursor - The AI Code Editor, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.cursor.com/features
  28. Models & Pricing - Cursor, accessed June 21, 2025, https://docs.cursor.com/models
  29. 4 Ways to Use Cursor AI for Free (No Payment Required) - Apidog, accessed June 21, 2025, https://apidog.com/blog/free-cursor-ai/
  30. What is Agile Development and why is it important? - OpenText, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.opentext.com/what-is/agile-development
  31. What is Agile Software Development TechFAR Hub Handbook USDS.gov, accessed June 21, 2025, https://techfarhub.usds.gov/pre-solicitation/agile-overview/
  32. Agile methodology - CircleCI, accessed June 21, 2025, https://circleci.com/topics/agile/
  33. Agile Development Methodologies: An Essential Guide - BrowserStack, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.browserstack.com/guide/agile-development-methodologies
  34. Integrating “Vibe Coding” with Agile Methodologies for Better Project Management - Arsturn, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.arsturn.com/blog/integrating-vibe-coding-with-agile-methodologies-for-better-project-management
  35. 5 Vibe Coding Risks and Ways to Avoid Them in 2025 - Zencoder, accessed June 21, 2025, https://zencoder.ai/blog/vibe-coding-risks
  36. Analyzing the Impact of “Vibe Coding” on Software Quality & Maintainability - Arsturn, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.arsturn.com/blog/analyzing-the-impact-of-vibe-coding-on-software-quality-and-maintainability
  37. Rapid Application Development (RAD) Definition, Steps & Full Guide, accessed June 21, 2025, https://kissflow.com/application-development/rad/rapid-application-development/
  38. Rapid Application Development (RAD): A Guide For 2024 - Monday.com, accessed June 21, 2025, https://monday.com/blog/rnd/rapid-application-development-rad/
  39. 9 benefits of rapid application development (RAD) - Zoho, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.zoho.com/creator/application-development/9-benefits-of-rapid-application-development.html
  40. Rapid Application Development (RAD) - Training Industry, accessed June 21, 2025, https://trainingindustry.com/glossary/rapid-application-development-rad/
  41. 5 Advantages of Rapid Application Development (RAD) - Knack, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.knack.com/blog/advantages-of-rapid-application-development/
  42. Rapid Application Development (RAD): A Guide For 2024, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.monday.com/blog/rnd/rapid-application-development-rad/
  43. Vibe coding vs traditional coding: Key differences - Hostinger, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.hostinger.com/tutorials/vibe-coding-vs-traditional-coding
  44. Vibe Coding: Pairing vs. Delegation - IT Revolution, accessed June 21, 2025, https://itrevolution.com/articles/vibe-coding-pairing-vs-delegation/
  45. Vibe Coding and CHOP: What You Need to Know About AI-Driven Development, accessed June 21, 2025, https://gradientflow.com/vibe-coding-and-chop-what-you-need-to-know/
  46. www.techtarget.com, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/definition/Pair-programming#:~:text=Pair%20programming%20is%20a%20collaborative,well%20suited%20for%20everyone%2C%20however.
  47. Pair programming - Wikipedia, accessed June 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming
  48. An Introduction to Pair Programming - Qentelli, accessed June 21, 2025, https://qentelli.com/thought-leadership/insights/introduction-pair-programming
  49. Vibe Coding vs. Engineering Discipline: Why Production Apps Can’t Run on Vibes Alone, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.1985.co.in/blog/vibe-coding-vs-engineering-discipline-why-production-apps-cant-run-on-vibes-alone/
  50. Secure Vibe Coding: The Complete New Guide - The Hacker News, accessed June 21, 2025, https://thehackernews.com/2025/06/secure-vibe-coding-complete-new-guide.html
  51. The Ultimate Vibe Coding Guide : r/ClaudeAI - Reddit, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1kivv0w/the_ultimate_vibe_coding_guide/
  52. Vibe Coding vs. Software Engineering: Speed + Scalability - Leanware, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.leanware.co/insights/vibe-coding-vs-traditional-coding
  53. Vibe Coding: Leveraging AI-Assisted Programming - Cycode, accessed June 21, 2025, https://cycode.com/blog/vibe-coding/
  54. Karpathy’s ‘Vibe Coding’ Movement Considered Harmful N’s Blog - Namanyay Goel, accessed June 21, 2025, https://nmn.gl/blog/dangers-vibe-coding
  55. What do you think about “Vibe Coding” in long term ? : r/SaaS - Reddit, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SaaS/comments/1kdmkzq/what_do_you_think_about_vibe_coding_in_long_term/
  56. livekit-examples/phone-assistant - GitHub, accessed June 21, 2025, https://github.com/livekit-examples/phone-assistant
  57. livekit/agents: A powerful framework for building realtime voice AI agents 🎙️ - GitHub, accessed June 21, 2025, https://github.com/livekit/agents
  58. LiveKit Agents, accessed June 21, 2025, https://docs.livekit.io/agents/
  59. Agents telephony integration - LiveKit Docs, accessed June 21, 2025, https://docs.livekit.io/agents/start/telephony/
  60. phone-assistant/agent.py at main · livekit-examples/phone-assistant …, accessed June 21, 2025, https://github.com/livekit-examples/phone-assistant/blob/main/agent.py
  61. livekit/livekit: End-to-end stack for WebRTC. SFU media server and SDKs. - GitHub, accessed June 21, 2025, https://github.com/livekit/livekit
  62. Agent speech and audio - LiveKit Docs, accessed June 21, 2025, https://docs.livekit.io/agents/build/audio/
  63. What I Learned from Vibe Coding - DEV Community, accessed June 21, 2025, https://dev.to/erikch/what-i-learned-vibe-coding-30em
  64. A Structured Workflow for “Vibe Coding” Full-Stack Apps - DEV Community, accessed June 21, 2025, https://dev.to/wasp/a-structured-workflow-for-vibe-coding-full-stack-apps-352l
  65. Building the all-in-one platform for voice AI agents - LiveKit Blog, accessed June 21, 2025, https://blog.livekit.io/livekits-series-b/

You may also enjoy