Will vibe coding end like the maker movement?
This piece dissects 'vibe coding,' comparing the rapid, AI-assisted creation process to the earlier Maker Movement and finding striking differences. It argues that unlike the Maker Movement's 'scenius' phase, vibe coding bypasses deep learning, leading to 'evaluative anesthesia' and value flowing upstream to model providers. The author provocatively redefines this activity as 'consumption' of surplus intelligence, suggesting it can still be productive through judgment, attention, social capital, or data collection.
The Lowdown
The article critically examines 'vibe coding'—the act of rapidly creating with AI tools—by drawing parallels to and distinctions from the Maker Movement (circa 2005-2015). It contends that while new technologies are often seen as clean breaks, understanding their predecessors offers crucial insights.
- Maker Movement's 'Scenius' Phase: The Maker Movement fostered a 'scenius'—a community of practice where individuals experimented with tools without immediate pressure for economic output, leading to internal transformation and development of instincts.
- Vibe Coding's Missing Phase: Vibe coding, conversely, skips this exploratory phase, being deployed directly into production. This prevents the accumulation of playful, foundational knowledge and leads to an 'evaluative anesthesia' where creators struggle to distinguish between genuine quality and the mere act of production.
- Value Accumulation: Just as the Maker Movement saw value accumulate in industrial manufacturing rather than distributed fabrication, vibe coding risks making creators interchangeable while value flows upstream to AI model providers and infrastructure.
- The Consumption Metaphor: The author proposes 'consumption' as a more fitting metaphor for vibe coding, viewing AI as a surplus of cognitive energy to be expended.
- Productive Consumption: This consumption can be productive, fostering judgment (knowing 'what should exist'), generating attention and reputation through public performance ('built this in a weekend'), building social capital through gifting (open source), or capturing valuable signal/data that would otherwise flow upstream.
Ultimately, the article suggests that reframing AI-driven creation as consumption, rather than traditional craft, offers a more sustainable emotional posture, shifting the focus from personal struggle and mastery to strategic expenditure of available energy.
The Gossip
Effortless Endeavors, Empty Echoes
Many commenters express dismissiveness towards 'vibe coding' projects, particularly those lauded for being built quickly with AI. They argue that the lack of significant personal effort diminishes the impressiveness of the output, likening it to a 'finger painting' rather than a true accomplishment. The novelty of rapid creation hasn't worn off for some, but for others, it's just 'slop' without internal benchmarks for quality.
Maker Movement Morphs
The discussion questions whether AI tools fundamentally change or kill the 'maker movement.' Some believe AI democratizes hardware creation (e.g., ESP32 code with Claude Code), making it accessible to non-engineers. Others counter that this might lead to more security vulnerabilities (IoT 'shitshow') or that the fundamental human desire to 'make' things, or lack thereof, remains unchanged regardless of tool ease.
Signaling vs. Substance
Several comments highlight the performative aspect of 'vibe coding,' suggesting that many quick projects are less about genuine utility and more about 'technical virtue signaling' or seeking attention. The question arises whether the excitement to share is authentic or if it's merely a display of capability in a novel, low-effort way, often for an audience.