This take is foolish and will always be foolish. Coding was mever easy in ANY domain (not just low level stuff) and the fact that we built syntax highlighting, high-level languages, auto-conplete, static analysis, debuggers, etc., in order to make it easier is the proof.

Take a step into the business side of software. Code is definitely not the hard part. You wouldn't say wood is hard part (heh) of wood working. It is planning and architecting. When to use the right tools. Just because a ruler has hash marks that doesn't mean measuring is hard it means the ruler doesn't work without it.

What type of software have you been writing before entering the business side of software and for how long?

The point is that it is presumed that you must've gotten the info somewhere in order to back up your claims. If not this outdated website, where then?

This industry's complete outsourcing of its core business value on a third party proprietary subscription based tool, Claude, made by an unprofitable company, Anthropic, is very concerning. You are all lunatics, sorry.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. Would it have been meaningfully different if OP had used open-weight models like GLM or DeepSeek? Does it really matter considering we'll have superior models next quarter?

The meaningful difference is that you will not experience EOS if (when) anthropic/openai/etc fails to become profitable and is no longer subsidized by capital funding.

While "vibe-coded" apps do help lots of people who didnt have the time/money/skills to create their projects, you should be aware that currently the compute is being subsidized so that users become reliant/used to the service.

I believe vibe coding in general is a bad business strategy whether you use FOSS models or not because it means your product probably doesn't have any "secret sauce" (leaving code maintainability problems aside). By that I mean a carefully researched innovation that gives the edge to your product. Nevertheless, using FOSS models is clearly better for the reason you mentioned. I believe serious businesses will transition into using AI on-premise in a very restrictive manner (eg: AI only for tests and reviews policy, etc.). We'll once the dust is settled.

Internal business tools are not innovative products. The potential edge comes from things like being better aligned with the business process or eliminating tasks from the process.

You can inject "secret sauce" through your domain knowledge or life experience.

You could vibe code the "tedium" out of your app with little to no care about it using AI while paying close attention to the critical aspects of your product. Of course, the fact that all of your AI code usage is being monitored by the company that provides you the model/harness is also still means they can just steal your product whenever they want

Stricter use would remove the primary benefit while not really giving much upside so I don't think companies will move in this direction

> Of course, the fact that all of your AI code usage is being monitored by the company that provides you the model/harness is also still means they can just steal your product whenever they want

Also anything which isn’t kept private can quickly be cloned. I think it’s going to be hard for a SaaS to stay profitable unless there’s a real-world tie-in to keep someone from pointing a bit at your app and cloning the observable behavior with just enough changes to claim they didn’t.

The question is if your "secret sauce" will stay secret as you use Anthropic's products, considering they've been launching specialised models like Claude Legal and Design. What happened to Figma with Claude Design should be a warning sign.

You're making the mistake of assuming that just because LLMs make things easy, all of the value is in the LLM and not in the prompting and glue work.

Put on the hats of a risk manager or supply chain manager. Yes, that would have mattered. What you insource today, you can repeat tomorrow. If you know the price of an input will multiply in the near future, you should at least develop processes that can handle disruption. If you expect dirt cheap LLM’s to remain available, or even better: improve in quality, feel free to make that assumption explicit and keep using the external supply. I don’t know what the future holds, but the vibe your software organizations cannot go back to manual development once LoC has exploded. I hope firms are making these choices deliberately.

You seem to be referencing as core business value a combination of (1) the ability to maintain a (2) business criitical resource, but stating it as if catastrophizing from a hasty generalization. Can you clarify?

It's really not that simple. A lot of what's involved is fungible. Of course, the answer to "Was the greatest intelligence harnessed to make the greatest decision?" Is always no.

AIs can be swapped for one another, run locally, and implemented in ways that are less prone to loss of function. Loss of anyone who understands the working code is a type of risk, but that kind of issue tends to bounce between losing skill from lack of foresight due to economic savings, and overhiring / bringing back lost employees as consultants.

The industry is a joke.

Meta requires tens of thousands of engineers to maintain a social media site. Google even more for an ad platform.

Never have so many achieved so little and the joke is all those clowns think they are “10x engineers”. Meanwhile WhatsApp got to global scale with less than 30 people (before Meta bought it and piled on the inefficiency).

Vibe coding is many orders of magnitude more efficient than the industry standard and that’s why it’s so disruptive.

I think the comment said they were outsourcing it to "whatever".

>could do bad things like ask for more money

Asking for a raise is a bad thing? Lol your average Silicon Valley sociopath

Tech companies more and more delusional every time, thinking they are special and that their product is so critical for society, and possibly more complex than operating a particle accelerator. So, you basically have to be an outstanding genius in order to have the "honor" to work for them. Then you go in and it's just a glorified vibecoded spaghetti CRUD. Not surprised.

Of course it has the MIT license, when the original was GPL. To hell with these Rust rewrites!

Don't bother, they love AI slop here on HN, and will cope hard on the comments

The industry should get down from its egocentric ivory tower and start hiring like other industries. You are not special, tech. Just have a sort of bar exam you have to take every x amount of years. The actual interview should just be an in-person behavioral one, with your future boss. Period. Don't get enough signal from that? Sorry, that's life, taking risks. Imagine trying to open a business without taking risks, and only kickstart it once you are a 100% sure it will work. No other industry is as delusional. Here is a reality pill: what you are asking, a 100% safe investment, is impossible, as any economist will tell you. "Campfire", give me a break, grown up adults with families don't have time for that Silicon Valley wankery, and you have no evidence that the results will be as good and unbiased as you think they'll be...thanks for bringing attention to the subject though, and in passsing also confirming how garbage the Google (and FAANG, in general) hiring process really is.

Just one more thing: the industry should really put a bit more weight on measuring people's potential and the concept of long-term growing and learning on the job. Just saying. You know, like every other industry on this planet.

This is why we need interviews to filter off people who are bad enough to think "bar exam" is the right abstraction for software engineer.