Vibe coding has quickly become a buzzword among software developers, stirring discussion about how it compares to past programming approaches that leverage technology to speed up the process. Enthusiasts say this new trend could change workplaces, while skeptics question whether it is truly distinct from existing AI coding help.
Coined in early 2025 by Andrej Karpathy, who now heads Eureka Labs, the term denotes a method where generative AI tools write code based on general instructions typed in plain language. Rather than handling small bits of code, programmers describe the goal, and the AI creates the code needed to deliver that result.
No reliable numbers show exactly how many professionals use vibe coding, but the concept has captured business leaders’ attention as they contemplate automating more work. Executives imagine significant cost drops if fewer coders are necessary to get products to market.
Evaluating Vibe Coding and Its Place Among Coding Methods
Some developers see little to distinguish vibe coding from what has until recently been called AI-assisted programming. Both rely on artificial intelligence to generate at least segments of code and have gained popularity as generative AI models improve. The biggest difference, advocates argue, lies in the level of abstraction: while older tools focused on filling in single lines or small parts of a program, vibe coding is about spelling out what the software should accomplish and letting AI fill in the details.
Earlier moves to streamline development, such as low code or no code platforms, also sought to save time by letting people assemble software with prefabricated components rather than writing code from scratch. Unlike vibe coding, these platforms did not use generative AI, but the goal of reducing painstaking manual work is familiar.
Seen in context, vibe coding feels less like a dramatic departure than another step in a steady shift towards automating larger chunks of the programming process. Its real innovation may be more about degrees of automation than about the underlying principle.
Some observers think vibe coding will become a long-lasting tool in the developer’s toolkit, much as earlier generations of automation have. Others believe it may stay niche, used in specific workflows without becoming the dominant practice in the industry.
The strongest supporters of vibe coding appear to be executives who hope to hire fewer engineers, not necessarily those who spend their days writing code. For those actually programming, the difference between vibe coding and long-standing AI support tools may not feel significant.
It remains to be seen whether widespread excitement around generative AI-based code creation hints at a true transformation or simply rebrands existing technology in a more appealing package. For now, most agree that programmers would be wise to keep practicing their craft regardless of which tools take center stage.
