Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was the recipient of some very bad vibes last week after bragging on X that nearly half his exchange’s code is already AI-generated, with plans to push it higher. The post unleashed a torrent of ridicule, and seemed to crystalize the skepticism over the reliability of “vibe coding” tools that’s been bubbling for months.
Over the last couple of years, AI coding tools like Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex (OpenAI), Cursor, Lovable, and Replit have reached far beyond auto-completing lines of code; they can generate entire apps and features from a plain-language prompt, even for users with little or no coding experience. But even as enterprise execs hope the tools will speed up their software production, many in the development community are finding that while vibe coding may be great for slapping together demos, it’s not so great for building secure, reliable, and explainable software. And the problems created by AI-generated code may only surface long after the software has shipped.
“Code created by AI coding agents can become development hell,” says Jack Zante Hays, a senior software engineer at PayPal who works on AI software development tools. He notes that while the tools can quickly spin up new features, they often generate technical debt, introducing bugs and maintenance burdens that must eventually be paid down with developer time and effort. That trade-off has some engineers questioning whether vibe coding tools ultimately cost more time than they save.
