Vibe Coding vs. Vibe Engineering - Do We Really Need Another Label?

I’ve long followed (and highly recommend) Simon Willison’s excellent weblog. Recently, I was drawn into a lively debate sparked by his attempt to redefine what it means to build software in the age of AI.

Willison describes vibe coding as “the fast, loose, and irresponsible way of building software with AI—entirely prompt-driven, and with no attention paid to how the code actually works.”

He then poses a provocative question: What should we call the other end of the spectrum—where experienced professionals use LLMs to accelerate their work while staying fully accountable for the results?

His proposed answer: vibe engineering.

The idea caught my attention, so I dove into the roughly 230 comments that followed. What emerged was a fascinating cross-section of how today’s developers, engineers, and technologists feel about the changing nature of their craft.

Here’s my analysis of that very enlightening discussion.

Mixed Reception to the Label Itself

Many readers appreciate Willison’s tongue-in-cheek tone but feel that “vibe engineering” doesn’t quite land.

• Some find it clever, a cheeky counterpoint to vibe coding that highlights accountability and craftsmanship in AI-assisted work.
• Others dislike it, saying “vibe” sounds unserious or confusing outside software (one commenter joked about dying in a “vibe-engineered truck”).
• Several prefer alternatives such as agent-assisted coding, augmented engineering, or agentic coding.
• A minority argue there’s no need for a new label at all: “We got better tools. Big whoop. It’s just engineering.”

Overall, vibe engineering is seen as memorable but polarizing; catchy enough to start a conversation, yet unserious enough to divide it.

Emotional Undercurrent: Excitement vs. Alienation

The deeper reactions weren’t really about the label itself, but about what it implies. A strong thread of anxiety, loss, and identity runs through the comments:

• Veteran developers express discouragement: coding now feels more like management and less like flow or craftsmanship. One described it as “being a gardener forced to use tractors.”
• Others echoed that LLM work feels managerial, turning artisans into middle managers of AI interns.
• Yet several respondents - including Willison - argue that AI amplifies expertise, making senior engineers more valuable, not less. LLMs widen the gap between junior and senior developers rather than erase it.

In short, the term vibe engineering became a proxy for discussing the emotional labor of adapting to AI-driven development.

Conceptual Tension: Is This Management or Engineering?

Several commenters argued that this new workflow feels more like project management than coding:

“It’s like being a technical manager, not an engineer.” “You’re not writing code, you’re managing code-writing agents.”

Others defended it as still engineering — just at a higher level of abstraction, where directing AI becomes part of system design. The community is split between those who see this as evolution and those who see it as dilution.

Semantic Tug-of-War Over “Vibe”

Several linguistic debates also emerged:

• Some believe vibe coding has already broadened to mean any AI-assisted coding, making vibe engineering redundant.
• Others insist vibe coding should remain pejorative - “take the wheel, Llama of God” - and that a new term is needed for serious practitioners.
• A humorous faction proposed terms like YOLO coding, slop coding, or extreme vibe coding.

The back-and-forth reveals a subtle identity struggle in the developer community: What does it really mean to do AI-assisted work responsibly?

Meta-Themes: Redefinition of Skill, Joy, and Purpose

Beyond semantics, commenters explored what’s being gained and lost:

• Skill redefinition: Expertise now means orchestrating rather than crafting. Some find that empowering; others find it soulless.
• Flow disruption: Many miss the immersion of traditional coding and describe AI workflows as fragmented or cognitively taxing.
• Ethics and sustainability: A few raised concerns about copyright, environmental impact, and “intellectual slop” - overreliance on synthetic work that dulls learning.

In essence, the debate sparked a community-wide introspection on craftsmanship versus automation. Much like painters once debated photography.

Sentiment Map: How the Community Sees “Vibe Engineering”

Meta-trend: The split isn’t about semantics alone. Supporters interpret “vibe engineering” as inclusive humor for a weird new era, while detractors see it as an emblem of their alienation from that era.

My Take

Based on the debate, it’s clear that vibe engineering isn’t just a label; it’s a Rorschach test for identity in the AI era. Supporters see it as a playful bridge between humor and professionalism; critics hear it as the sound of their craft being rebranded into a meme.

Yet both sides converge on one essential truth: coding is no longer the same craft it was a year ago. The tools have changed, the tempo has changed, and with them, the meaning of expertise.

As for me, I believe vibe coding has already expanded to describe nearly all forms of AI-assisted development. In that sense, vibe engineering feels redundant. Though perhaps its very existence signals something deeper: our collective need to name, frame, and make sense of this strange new relationship between human skill and machine capability.

And maybe that’s the real story here. Not which term sticks, but how we, as a community, choose to define what craftsmanship means in the age of automation.

Do we actually need new terminology for the AI-assisted way of working, or should we simply call it engineering, as we always have?

If your organization is exploring how AI reshapes the way teams build, design, and deliver — but you’re unsure how to keep human expertise at the center — let’s talk. I help business leaders redefine craftsmanship, accountability, and performance in the age of intelligent automation.

// Joachim Cronquist (joachim@cronquist.ai)