Con: the machine will tell you you have easily found a good problem, and engineered the perfect and necessary solution, if you let it

We need a catchy name for this phenomenon.

There are some cases where it is pleasingly simple - usually low level algorithms like compression, sorting, search etc. Basically things you'd find in leetcode questions.

Most software isn't like that.

I think the actual answer is just that the very latest models (e.g. Astra) are actually quite good at writing normal tests, and you can just skim them to make sure they're doing something sane.

This is totally true but almost totally irrelevant. I'll use some hyperbole here to make the point: Whether the design is broken or decades behind doesn't matter anymore. Neither of those are an outcome/end goal. They are means we historically have used to achieve good end goals or outcomes.

In the end, the goal is usually "does it meet the needs of the person who needed it" not "is it good software". If it no longer meets their needs and they can vibe code another total piece of shit in an hour that meets their needs again, they still may be "better off" than spending time researching the field and learning and ...

This may feel shitty, and it may feel like it should not be true. But right now, that seems to be true?

In that sense, the author is wrong that vibe-coding is a trap. The trap is assuming you have to make something good to meet someone's needs both now, and in the future.

Now, like i said, this is hyperbole, and there are lots of good arguments against it. The author's just isn't one.

Technically good or better has never mattered very much in the marketplace, despite people wanting it to really badly (ease of use often mattered, but not technical goodness). Software engineers often took pride in their work and so there were usually kernels of goodness in even the shittiest software. All you are seeing is that now it is nowhere near as hard to create and bring these "solutions" to market, and more importantly, doesn't necessarily require anyone who has any pride in their work at all, or even have any experience in software engineering. As such, technical goodness has mostly gone out the window because the market never required or really rewarded it.

I absolutely endorse new creations when they are necessary but the people making these aren't doing it from a point of education, they are doing it purely because _they_ don't understand the framework or language that is the standard for that area.

It always always always involves a high level of AI Psychosis, that a brand new web framework is needed for your revolutionary... CRUD app?

Despite the fact that the entire premise is incorrect since the author of the language clearly has been shown to know about formal verification, this is basically encouraging nobody to ever post anything they work on for fear it might be "similar" to something already out there.

Is this really where we want the industry to go to all because of vibe coding?

The author of the article itself also clearly did 0 research of their own at all on the author of the language, and admits to vibe coding their own example themselves.

What the fuck are we doing.