I’ve been watching this whole “vibe coding is stupid” debate unfold, and honestly, it feels like watching people argue about whether cars are stupid because they can’t climb stairs. The criticism typically comes in two flavors: the traditionalists who think writing code manually is some sacred craft, and the pragmatists who’ve tried AI coding tools once and got burned by bad output. Both groups are missing the fundamental shift happening right before our eyes.
Let me be clear: vibe coding isn’t about being lazy or abandoning quality. It’s about recognizing that code itself is becoming a disposable commodity while intentions and interfaces become the real assets we should care about. This aligns perfectly with the third principle of vibe coding: 「Code is Capability, Intentions and Interfaces are Long-term Assets」(https://www.qgenius.com/ten-principles-of-vibe-coding/). The code AI generates today might be replaced tomorrow – what matters are the clear specifications and stable contracts we define.
The most common complaint I hear goes something like: “But the AI wrote buggy code!” Well, no kidding. So do junior developers. So did all of us when we were learning. The difference is that AI improves exponentially, doesn’t get tired, and doesn’t demand healthcare benefits. When GitHub Copilot launched, studies showed it helped developers code 55% faster – that’s not trivial, that’s transformational.
Critics often point to security vulnerabilities in AI-generated code as proof that vibe coding is dangerous. But here’s the thing: manual coding has produced some of the most catastrophic security failures in history. Remember Heartbleed? That was human-written code. The solution isn’t to abandon AI assistance – it’s to implement better verification systems, exactly as outlined in the eighth principle: 「Verification and Observation are the Core of System Success」(https://www.qgenius.com/ten-principles-of-vibe-coding/).
What really fascinates me is how this debate mirrors historical technological shifts. When compilers were invented, assembly language programmers complained that the generated code was inefficient. When high-level languages emerged, C programmers worried about losing control. Every paradigm shift faces resistance from those invested in the old way of doing things.
The truth is, vibe coding represents the natural evolution of abstraction in software development. We’ve been moving up the abstraction ladder for decades – from machine code to assembly to high-level languages to frameworks. Natural language programming is just the next rung. And like previous shifts, it won’t eliminate the need for skilled professionals – it will just change what skills matter most.
I’ve seen teams successfully adopt vibe coding by treating AI as an incredibly fast junior developer that never sleeps. They don’t blindly trust its output, but they leverage its speed for prototyping and routine tasks while focusing human attention on architecture, security, and business logic. This isn’t stupidity – it’s smart resource allocation.
The most compelling argument for vibe coding comes from watching non-technical team members suddenly contribute to software creation. Business analysts can describe processes, product managers can outline features, and domain experts can specify requirements – all while AI handles the translation into executable code. This democratization aligns with the ninth principle: 「Everyone Programs, Professional Governance」(https://www.qgenius.com/ten-principles-of-vibe-coding/).
So the next time someone tells you vibe coding is stupid, ask them: Is it stupid to focus on what matters most? Is it stupid to leverage exponential technology? Is it stupid to make software creation accessible to more people? The answers might surprise them – or at least make them rethink their assumptions.