Will vibe coding end like the maker movement?
read.technically.dev
read.technically.dev
I never heard that. It didn’t seem like 3D-printing ever showed sings of displacing existing ways of manufacturing at scale, did it? Units per hour and dollars per unit was never its strength. It was always going to be small things (and if anything big grew out of it, those would naturally transition to the more efficient manufacturing at scale).
Vibe coding, on the other hand, is competing against hand coding, and for many use cases is considerably more efficient. It’s clearly replacing a lot of hand coding.
BTW, I think a lot of people were/are greatly overestimating the value of coding to business success. It’s fungible from a macro perspective, so isn’t a moat by itself. There’s certainly a cost, but hardly the only one if you’re trying to be the next big startup (for that, the high cost of coding was useful — something to deter potential competitors; you’ll have to make up the difference in some other way now).
Also, software is something that already scaled really well in the way businesses need it to — code written once, whether by human or LLM, can be executed billions of times for almost nothing. Companies will be happy to have a way to press down the budget of a cost center, but the delta won’t make or break that many businesses.
As always, the people selling pick-axes during the gold rush will probably do the best.
Fully agree - We already saw dev prices drop significantly when offshore dev shops spun up. I've had great, and also horrible experiences working with devs that could produce lines of code at a fraction of the price of any senior type dev.
The higher paid engineers i've worked with are always worth their salary/hourly rate because of the way they approach problems and the solutions they come up with.
Agents are great at building out features, i'm not so sure about complex software that grows over time. Unless you know the right questions to ask, the agent misses alot. 80/20 doesn't work for systems that need 100% reliability.
I did, a lot, maybe fifteen years ago. There was a lot of talk about a "3D printing revolution" and being years away from being able to make whatever you want at home. For a while, the "maker" moniker was strongly associated with home manufacturing maximalists.
I still don't get the point the article is making, though. That 3D printer thinking was obviously naive because it underestimated the difficulty of mechanical design and the importance of the economies of scale. Using AI to "write" or "code" is a lot easier than turning a vague idea for a household good into a durable and aesthetic 3D print, so it's apples to oranges.
There are other things that the vibecoding movement is underestimating - when you pay a SaaS vendor, you're usually not paying for code as much as for having a turnkey solution where functionality, security, infrastructure, and user support are someone else's problem. But I think that's pretty much where the parallels end.
"The real test of Vibe coding is whether people will finally realize the cost of software development is in the maintenance, not in the creation."
https://blog.oak.ninja/shower-thoughts/2026/02/12/business-i...
No, it never seemed that way to the realists, but it was said to seem that way to the makerspheres.
It's really hard to beat injection molding for scale.
However, what 3D printing did shift was building molds and prototypes. And that shifted small volume manufacturing--one offs and small volumes are now practical that didn't used to be. In addition, you can iterate more easily over multiple versions.
The limiting factor, however, has always been the brain power designing the thing. YouTube is littered with videos that someone wants to build a "thing" and then spends 10-20 iterations figuring out everything they didn't know going into the project. This is no different from "real" projects, but your experienced engineering staff probably only take 5 iterations instead of 20.
It didn’t and I’m not sure anyone who knew anything about at-scale manufacturing ever saw it that way. Injection molding is far cheaper per unit and more accurate.
But 3D printing has made a major impact on prototyping. Parts that would have taken serious machine shop work or outsourcing can be printed in a few hours. It really changed the game for mechanical engineers.
In terms of vibe coding, time to demo/prototype is greatly reduced. That definitely takes time and cost away from R&D. But I don’t know that it’s had much impact on transfer to manufacturing, which can easily be the hard final 20%.
It absolutely was the "promise" the media spun.
I had the relatively unique experience of moving from being an outsider to this field to being an insider. While I was an outsider, my impressions, formed by the media, was exactly that—3d printing would be the next big revolution, in a few years there'd be a printer in every home, etc.
I then joined a company that allocated a lot of resources to 3d printing. It only took me a month or two to realize that the big media claims were absolutely ridiculous, and didn't make any sense as stated. They misunderstood the state of the technology, and misunderstood basic economics and how regular manufacturing works.
That's not to say there's no value in 3d printing or the maker movement. There's a ton of value that's been uncovered. But the specific media dream of "people will be printing their plates at home instead of buying them in the store" was never real.
(Btw, IMO "vibe coding" is absolutely real and revolutionary, likely the biggest revolution in the software industry since, idk, the invention of the computer itself. And AI more generally is, even beyond vibe coding aspect, a revolutionary technology that will change the world in many ways.)
> never heard that.
This book was a big deal, promised it ("Makers, the next industrial revolution") https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/makers-chris-anderson/11109...
There were articles posted on HN hyping exactly that, with comments debating whether 3D-printing would eventually replace conventional manufacturing at scale, and how people would no longer shop at stores like Walmart for their cheap products.
Broadly true if you have $10M to throw at it, and know exactly what you want, or if what you want isn't something involving a "secret sauce".
But between competing startups doing something novel, original software is a moat. No moat is permanent; you leverage it into market share while you have time.
And no software itself is a secret, but the business logic and real-world operations it distills and caters to may be. The software is the least obfuscated part of encoding that set of operational logic, or even trade secrets, which are the DNA of a business and dictate the tools it goes into battle with.
Software being a moat (which it rarely is for long) is more of a question for the software industry. For other industries, software that amplifies best practices and crystalizes operational flow from the business logic can absolutely extend whatever moat the company already has.
In the small bore, if you have two midsized competing $100m companies in some arbitrary industry, the one that uses SaaS may be well behind the one that invested $1m in their own in-house software from the beginning, mostly because the one with SaaS must work their business logic around certain shortcomings, while the other can devise and deploy workflows for employees that may themselves create a new advantage the other company hasn't considered.
I've frequently argued to my organization's leadership that the product could be open source on GitHub with a flashing neon sign above it and it wouldn't change anything about the business. A competitor stealing our codebase would probably be worse off than if they had done anything else. Conway's law and all that.
Personally, I don't believe the big changes will come from "coding costs less for businesses". I think it will come from "trying new businesses is now cheaper, both in time and money". Smaller and cheaper players will be entering a lot of spaces over the next 5 years IMO.
(Not to mention, it's only in the last few years where consumer-accessible 3D printers are more than hobbyist grade that required a huge amount of tinkering to actually work properly)
Its also interesting how the author frames the results: Shenzhen is now better than it was ever before at manufacturing. The maker culture succeeded!
I don't see it competing with anyone doing anything serious, outside of ML engineers and lets be honest, they always sucked at writing code, hated writing code so its not surprising how much they sing it's praise.
I think I have a conversation at least weekly where I have to explain to someone that using an LLM to convert COBOL to Java (or whatever) will not actually save much effort. I don’t know how many ways to explain that translating the literal instructions from one language to another is not actually is not that hard for someone fluent in both and the actual bottleneck is in understanding what sort of business logic the COBOL has embedded in it and all the foundational rearchitecting that will involve.
And there are plenty of people in the maker movement who enjoy writing code, and will write it whether other people are vibe coding or not.
it's the people that sell the pickaxe pickaxes.
If you balked at the idea, then you were the bad guy, or treated with pity for being so out of touch. Usually you got the Kubler-Ross Stages thrown at you.
Software companies spend a huge amount of money on having software written. Why would significantly altering the cost structure not make or break companies?
It seems like a lot of vibe coders are people who otherwise wouldn't be coding at all.
There was a point of time where some people looked at 3d printers and said "Wow, imagine how great this technology will be in 20 years." There was some amount of anticipation for multi-material printers to come around and for home printers to begin replacing traditional consumer goods. Compared to crypto, vr, and ai it doesn't look like much but 3d printing did go through a hype bubble.
Vibe coding, like 3D printing, is great for little small batch runs of boutique code. Small toy apps and throwaway projects.
Vibe coding is shit for doing actual maintenance on important projects that actually run the world. It is shit for creating anything that is of robust long lasting quality. It is shit for creating code you can trust. It is shit for creating code that won’t suddenly reveal flaws and inefficiencies at scale and require an entire proper rewrite just when your product is finally gaining traction. Vibe coding has not been around long enough to make these problems obvious yet, but the time is coming. A few high profile failures will hit the media and then suddenly everyone starts coming out of the woodwork with their own vibe coding horror stories and thus the AI bubble collapse begins.
What people will eventually realize, is that if you’re building a serious business with software that must run reliably for years, it really doesn’t give you any advantage being able to vibe code something in a week vs carefully building something out over a few months. Being unable to vibe code your way out of non-trivial maintenance issues is a death sentence for your business, you will need people who know what they are doing eventually.
Relying on vibe coding causes you to have a talent debt, and though you won’t feel it when you’re first rolling out a business, eventually, the bill comes due…
To the realists, 3D printing is specifically for small-scale manufacturing, rapid iteration on prototypes, etc.
Those problems span from fundamental architecture flaws, to issues anyone who spent 5 minutes reading the docs would never do, like create an entire app that slows to a crawl when more than one user uses it, because all parallel work gets serialized due to a complete misunderstanding of how concurrency, async/await and threads work in the language they're "writing".
People with too much money build entire apps on foundations that crumble and significantly hold them back from doing simple things, and I love it.
Seems like today they are still stuck in the tracks they were in 2016. A couple nerds own them personally. Maybe you'd find them in a maker space or a library or school. Not in your boomer parent's office though.
Once the predictions of a magical future turn out to be false, techies suddenly don't remember. Kind of like when the cult leader's prediction of doomsday doesn't show, there's always another magical prediction of a new future coming. Here are just a few major mainstream sources:
2012, Cornell Prof and Lab Director, in CNN: "We really want to print a robot that will walk out of a printer. We have been able to print batteries and motors, but we haven’t been able to print the whole thing yet. I think in two or three years we’ll be able to do that." (https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/tech/3d-printing-manufacturin...)
2013, World Economic Forum: "the world can be altered further if home-based 3D printing becomes the norm. In this world, every home is equipped with a printer capable of making most of the products it needs. Supply chains that support the flow of products and parts to consumers will vanish, to be replaced by supply chains of raw material." (https://www.weforum.org/stories/2013/08/will-3d-printing-kil...)
2013, President of the United States of America Barack Obama hypes up 3-D printing in the State of the Union as a technology that will bring manufacturing back to the U.S.: “A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3-D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything..." Obama announced plans for three more manufacturing hubs where businesses will partner with the departments of Defense and Energy “to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.” (https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/13/tech/innovation/obama-3d-...)
2012, Cover story and special issue of The Economist predicting another Nth industrial revolution:
"THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else besides.
A number of remarkable technologies are converging: clever software, novel materials, more dexterous robots, new processes (notably three-dimensional printing) and a whole range of web-based services. The factory of the past was based on cranking out zillions of identical products: Ford famously said that car-buyers could have any colour they liked, as long as it was black. But the cost of producing much smaller batches of a wider variety, with each product tailored precisely to each customer’s whims, is falling. The factory of the future will focus on mass customisation—and may look more like those weavers’ cottages than Ford’s assembly line." (archive: https://communicateasia.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/manufacturi...)
In the past weeks I:
- 3D printed custom cups that fit onto a pet feeder to prevent ants from getting to our cat food
- 3D printed custom mounts to mount 3W WS2812 LEDs to illuminate Chinese New Year lanterns and connected them to an ESP32 WLED box connected to home assistant
- Connected an vision language model to a security camera that can answer questions about how many times a cat has eaten, drank water, used the toilet, and inform us about any things in the room that look abnormal
- Custom laser cutted a wall fitting for a portable heat pump input and output condenser hoses and added a condensate pump to the contraption, it saves us $200/month in heating costs
- Custom designed a retrofit for a sliding door that accepts a Nuki smart lock that wasn't designed for this type of door.
- Custom laser cutted a valentines day card in Chinese paper cutting style that was generated with many rounds of back and forth prompting with Gemini, then converted to SVG and cut
- My wife and I thought IKEA SKADIS pegboards would look better if they were made out of bamboo plywood, so I shoved a sheet of bamboo into my laser cutter and had it cut out a pegboard that looked much nicer, sprayed it with lacquer, then attached it to the wall with 3D printed mounting hardware. The SVG for the pegboard was generated by a script written by Cursor and took a couple of minutes.
- Having an ESP32 feed a camera image to an LLM and then do something with the result is a piece of cake. A box that "sprays water to deter the cat if the cat jumps on the kitchen counter" is a 1-hour job after you order the components from Amazon, and an LLM will build that parts list for you, too.
- Reverse enginereed the firmware of a Unifi Chime to upload more chime sounds than the UI limits you to, so that I can have Unifi Protect announce if there is an intruder somewhere late at night and where. Cursor reverse-engineered the firmware .bin for me.
A lot of this could have been worth sharing 10 years ago. Now all of this is just "normal life in 2026" so you don't hear about it much. I'm used to thinking of something and then physically having it <12 hours later. It's no longer an undertaking. It's not news anymore.
The bar for "news-worthiness" for makers these days? This guy built an entire city for his cats, with a full functional subway system and everything ...
Uh, no they're not. Did you not see the recent announcement from unity. One short prompt and you get a whole AAA+ game in one shot.
/s
What does it mean to say "we were promised flying cars", or "every city would have micro-factories, that 3D printing would decentralize production"?
The people creating these narratives may a) truly believe it and tried to make it a reality, but failed b) never believed it at all, but failed anyway, c) or be somewhere else on this quadrant of belief vs actuality.
Why not just treat it as, "a prediction that went wrong". I suppose it's because a narrative of promise feels like a promise, and people don't like being lied to.
It's a strange narrative maneuver we keep doing with tech, which is more future-facing than most fields.
The crux of the problem. The only way to truly know is to get your hands dirty. There are no shortcuts, only future liabilities.
And even today, people hack on assembly and ancient mainframe languages and demoscene demos and Atari ROMs and the like (mainly for fun but sometimes with the explicit intention of developing that flavor of judgment).
I predict with high confidence that not even Claude will stop tinkerers from tinkering.
All of our technical wizardry will become anachronistic eventually. Here I stand, Ozymandius, king of motorcycle repair, 16-bit assembly, and radio antennae bent by hand…
There are corners of the industry where people still write ASM by hand when necessary, but for the vast, vast majority it's neither necessary (because compilers are great) or worthwhile (because it's so time consuming).
Most code is written in high-level, interpreted languages with no particular attention paid to its performance characteristics. Despite the frustration of those of us who know better, businesses and users seem to choose velocity over quality pretty consistently.
LLM output is already good enough to produce working software that meets the stated requirements. The tooling used to work with them is improving rapidly. I think we're heading towards a world where actually inspecting and understanding the code is unusual (like looking at JVM/Python bytecode is today).
Future liabilities? Not any more than we're currently producing, but produced faster.
That is changing one word in the source code doesn’t tend to produce a vastly different output, or changes to completely unrelated code.
Because the LLM is working from informal language, it is by necessity making thousands of small (and not so small) decisions about how to translate the prompt into code. There are far more decisions here than can reasonably fixed in tests/specs. So any changes to the prompt/spec is likely to result in unintended changes to observable behavior that users will notice and be confused by.
You’re right that programmers regularly churn out unoptimized code. But that’s very different than churning out a bubbling morass where ever little thing that isn’t bolted down is constantly changing.
The ambiguity in translation from prompt to code means that the code is still the spec and needs to be understood. Combine that with prompt instability and we’ll be stuck understanding code for the foreseeable future.
Guess I just don't see how you can take the human out of the loop and replace them with non-deterministic AIs and informal prompts / specs.
I'm not particularly swayed by arguments of consciousness, whether AI is currently capable of "thinking", etc. Those may matter right now... but how long will they continue to matter for the vast majority of use cases?
Generally speaking, my feeling is that most code doesn't need to be carefully-crafted. We have error budgets for a reason, and AI is just shifting how we allocate them. It's only in certain roles where small mistakes can end your company - think hedge funds, aerospace, etc. - where there's safety in the non-determinism argument. And I say this as someone who is not in one of those roles. I don't think my job is safe for more than a couple of years at this point.
That's a bit shortsighted. There have been cries of software becoming needlessly bloated and inefficient since computers have existed (Wirth, of course, but countless others too). Do you visit any gamer communities? They are constantly blaming careless waste of resources and lack of optimization in games for many AAA games performing badly in even state of the art hardware, or constantly requiring you to upgrade your gaming rig.
I don't think the only scenario is boring CRUD or line of business software, where indeed performance often doesn't matter, and most of it can now be written by an AI.
Just one example I've seen time and again. You take an application that if optimized could run on a single server (maybe 2 if you absolutely have to have zero downtime deployments), but because no one cares about performance it runs on 10 or more. You now have a complexity avalanche that rapidly blows up. Then you need more hierarchy to handle the additional organizational complexity etc...
Then people start breaking out pieces of the app so they can scale them separately and before long you're looking at 200 engineers to do a job that certainly doesn't need that many people.
I realize I'm ignoring a whole lot of other issues that result in this kind of complexity, but lack of performance contributes to this a lot more than people want to admit.
I find it intriguing seeing this new batch of dev-types completely giving up on the matter. The conversation of machine vs developer efficiency is not new, but completely giving up on any sane use of resources is something relatively new, I think. Especially coming from some in the HN crowd. Maybe these are new people, so I can chalk it up to generational turnover?
Sanity is for my personal projects.
The in-code tests and the expectations/assumptions about the product that your users have are wildly different. If you allow agents to make changes restricted only by those tests, they’re going to constantly make changes that break customer workflows and cause noticeable jank.
Right now agents do this at a rate far higher than humans. This is empirically demonstrable by the fact that an agent requires tests to keep from spinning out of control when writing more than a few thousand lines and a human does not. A human is capable of writing tens of thousands as of lines with no tests, using only reason and judgement. An agent is not.
They clearly lack the full capability of human reason, judgment, taste, and agency.
My suspicion is that something close enough to AGI that it can essentially do all white dollar jobs is required to solve this.
And spec management, change previews, feedback capture at runtime, skill libraries, project scaffolding, task scoping analysis, etc.
Right now this stuff is all rudimentary, DIY, or non-existent. As the more effective ways to use LLMs becomes clearer I expect we'll see far more polished, tightly-integrated tooling built to use LLMs in those ways.
You are essentially saying that we should develop other methods of capturing the state of the program to prevent unintended changes.
However there’s no reason to believe that these other systems will be any easier to reason about than the code itself. If we had these other methods of ensuring that observerable behavior doesn’t change and they were substantially easier than reasoning about the code directly, they would be very useful for human developers as well.
The fact that we’ve not developed something like this in 75 years of writing programs, says it’s probably not as easy as you’re making it out.
Provide them with a mature, well-structured codebase to work within. Break the work down into tasks sized such that it's unlikely they'll spin out of control. Limit the scope/nature of changes such that they're changing one thing at a time rather than trying to one-shot huge programs. Use static analysis to identify affected user-facing flows and flag for human review. Provide the human-in-the-loop with fully functional before and after dev builds. Allow the human-in-the-loop to provide direct feedback within the dev build. Track the feedback the same way you track other changes. And, yes, have some automated tests that ensure core functionality matches requirements.
I think everything I've listed there can be built with existing technology.
> You are essentially saying that we should develop other methods of capturing the state of the program to prevent unintended changes.
I think you're imagining something far more sophisticated than what I'm actually suggesting. I also think you're setting a higher bar for agents to clear than what's actually required in practice.
Tests don't need to catch every issue, agents should be expected to make some mistakes (as humans do).
> However there’s no reason to believe that these other systems will be any easier to reason about than the code itself. If we had these other methods of ensuring that observerable behavior doesn’t change and they were substantially easier than reasoning about the code directly, they would be very useful for human developers as well.
There are lots of powerful static analysis tools out there than can be helpful in improving correctness and reducing the incidence of regressions. IME most human developers tend to eschew tools that are unfamiliar, have steep learning curves, or require extra effort when writing code.
> The fact that we’ve not developed something like this in 75 years of writing programs, says it’s probably not as easy as you’re making it out.
I think the cost/benefit of what I'm describing has changed. We've only had LLMs capable of reliably producing working code changes for around a year.
When do they have a real choice, without vendor lock-in or other pressure?
Windows 11 is 4 years old but until a few months ago barely managed to overtake Windows 10. Despite upgrades that were only "by choice" in the most user hostile sense imaginable (those dark patterns were so misleading I know multiple people who didn't notice that they "agreed" to it, and as it pop ups repeatedly it only takes a single wrong click to mess up). It doesn't look like people are very excited about the "velocity".
In the gaming industry AAA titles being thrown on the market in an unfinished state tends to also not go over well with the users, but there they have more power to make a choice as the market is huge and games aren't necessary tools, and such games rarely recover after a failed launch.
Wait, I think I have the answer!
"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?"
Bot detected
i can write like this if i want. or if i were a clever ai bot.
Or something. You're right.
LLMs are effectively (from this article's pov) the "Arduino of coding" but due to their nature, are being misunderstood/misrepresented as production-grade code printers when really they're just glorified MVP factories.
They don't have to be used this way (I use LLMs daily to generate a ton of code, but I do it as a guided, not autonomous process which yields wildly different results than a "vibed" approach), but they are because that's the extent of most people's ability (or desire) to understand them/their role/their future beyond the consensus and hype.
> that's definitely not the normal usage
The way I look at it, AI use -- proper AI use -- is something that needs to be taught / learned. It's not unlike other "computer literacy" skills. There are ways of using it more or less effectively to achieve your goals.
This is such high minded bullshit.
But LLM-aided development is helping me get my hands dirty.
Last weekend, I encountered a bug in my Minecraft server. I run a small modded server for my kids and I to play on, and a contraption I was designing was doing something odd.
I pulled down the mod's codebase, the fabric-api codebase (one of the big modding APIs), and within an hour or so, I had diagnosed the bug and fixed it. Claude was essential in making this possible. Could I have potentially found the bug myself and fixed it? Almost certainly. Would I have bothered? Of course not. I'd have stuck a hopper between the mod block and the chest and just hacked it, and kept playing.
But, in the process of making this fix, and submitting the PR to fabric, I learned things that might make the next diagnosis or tweak that much easier.
Of course it took human judgment to find the bug, characterize it, test it in-game. And look! My first commit (basically fully written by Claude) took the wrong approach! [1]
Through the review process I learned that calling `toStack` wasn't the right approach, and that we should just add a `getMaxStackSize` to `ItemVariantImpl`. I got to read more of the codebase, I took the feedback on board, made a better commit (again, with Claude), and got the PR approved. [2]
They just merged the commit yesterday. Code that I wrote (or asked to have written, if we want to be picky) will end up on thousands of machines. Users will not encounter this issue. The Fabric team got a free bugfix. I learned things.
Now, again - is this a strawman of your point? Probably a little. It's not "vibe coding going straight to production." Review and discernment intervened to polish the commit, expertise of the Fabric devs was needed. Sending the original commit straight to "production" would have been less than ideal. (arguably better than leaving the bug unfixed, though!)
But having an LLM help doesn't have to mean that less understanding and instinct is built up. For this case, and for many other small things I've done, it just removed friction and schlep work that would otherwise have kept me from doing something useful.
This is, in my opinion, a very good thing!
[1]: https://github.com/FabricMC/fabric-api/pull/5220/changes/3e3...
[2]: https://github.com/FabricMC/fabric-api/pull/5220/changes
The author talks about lowered barriers to prototyping as though they represent a failure state; that's absurd, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether most people have membership-based maker spaces nearby.
Meanwhile, we're in a golden era of tool access. It's now possible for people to buy affordable CNCs, laser cutters and UV printers. I have a freaking pick and place in my home.
Also, you can have custom PCBs shipped to you in a week for about $10.
Having LLMs available at the same time as all of these tools are rapidly evolving means that anyone with an idea can prototype just about anything. In my worldview, anyone not excited about this either has no original ideas or a cynical agenda.
I'd say more but I have to get back to work on my maker projects.
I don't love that my career seems to be evaporating and perhaps no one will have a use for me soon, but, LLMs have made making even easier and more fun than ever. My sense of what I can take on has been amplified so much, it feels like a super power. Reverse engineering things used to be intimidating to take on, but now it feels like a couple afternoons of exploring with Claude. Understanding the scope of ideas is way more accessible, and often more constrained than it used to be.
I learn so much more than I used to, I get more done than I used to. I love it.
I am quite tired of skeptics and naysayers telling me that I'm only imagining learning, only imagining finishing projects, only imagining having more time for the fun parts.
I'm able to take on way more interesting and challenging projects in my business because the logistics and legwork required for implementing them are greatly simplified by being able to actually implement the specs for the software I've had in my head for years.
This is a stark contrast to pre-2024 or so. I've always been an explorer, a fairly prolific software developer I guess, but now it's so much more than that. And it's leaking into hardware and other physical ventures. I'm typically limited by funds more than anything.
Are some of my projects lower quality than if they were done by someone more qualified? Yeah, totally. Though I think I still do a solid job. I don't care though; these things have opened my eyes and mind so much and made creating so much more inviting and exciting.
It still burns with the 'career careening into the dirt' vibes I get most days, but what the hell, it was good while it lasted. If I was smart enough to make the computer do the thing, maybe I'll be smart enough to do something else that's useful. And I've got some years left before it's truly end of the line, I think.
With that kind of potential, I find it strange to think that all these talented people will be let go. Maybe if AI really ramps up quickly, but I think it's more likely we'll see a million small business started, exploring into niches that were just too much time investment previously. I myself have a bunch of ideas that also involve hardware and physical manufacturing.
It's a scary but very vibrant time to be in this position we are. It might not be bad for those who are bold enough to grab it by the horns.
I personally think that as amazing as LLMs for coding are, LLMs for coding and electronics is like activating the powered robotic exoskeleton for your mind.
As for whether your projects are lower quality (the kids would say "mid"; catch up!) or not... they are higher quality than the ones you made last year, and I heard that the actual best way to learn is by doing. Ideally also asking a ton of questions at each step.
Some nights I lay in bed just relentlessly interrogating ChatGPT in audio mode about transformers and op-amps.
Thank you!
> they are higher quality than the ones you made last year,
This is exactly it. Perfect is the enemy of good here. These projects have made significant impacts on how I get real things done.
And for the most part they just aren't
Either way, I suppose the answer is relative and subjective and Bambu Lab would not agree with you.
I didn't want to argue with you, so I did some research.
The global 3D printer market grew from USD$24B in 2024 to $30B in 2025. It's estimated to grow 24% y/y for the next decade: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/3d-printer...
If you Google it, this is generally matched by 5-6 different research companies.
Laser cutters are a USD$7B global market today, and also expected to grow around ~8% y/y into the next decade: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/Laser-Cutti...
A huge number of YouTube channel creators I subscribe to have received Carvera CNC mills over the past few months. Anecdotal but striking. It seems like everyone who left LTT to go solo has a CNC now, even if they usually review graphics cards.
Opulo, the makers of the Lumen PnP cannot achieve less than a 1 month lead time, seemingly no matter how many people they hire or how much factory space they acquire. And that's a pretty niche device, relatively speaking.
In conclusion, you're wrong.
The point of this thread: the maker movement isn’t dead simply because most people don’t care about CNC machines. In reality, there are loads of makers & people who love tinkering and building things for themselves, it’s easier than ever to do so (and to build very non-trivial products for yourself), and more and more people are able to get into this.
If the maker movement was actually dead, we wouldn’t be seeing an explosion of powerful, easy-to-use manufacturing tools available at lower & lower price points.
I guess your point is that it’s not exactly mainstream, not that no one is buying them. Which is true, but who cares.
I don't know why I let myself get triggered by some rando who has convinced himself that just because he doesn't do something it must not be popular, but here I am.
Obviously such a pursuit is going to never be something 1/2 of people do, you need:
- space
- ambition
- aptitude
- money
- tolerance for huge amounts of frustration
- some ability and openness to learn rapidly
- enough time to devote to it
- a space to allow noisy things to run for hours
- the ability to acquire these things in your country
Those aspects filter out a great percentage of the population, of course this will never be "mainstream". VR goggles aren't mainstream, why would you expect someone wanting to make their own CNC cabinets (or whathaveyou) to be moreso?
I will admit that as a whole, this thread has made me super sad even while I'm confident pg would say that most people revealing themselves to be uninspired pessimists can be seen as a major source of opportunity for hackers.
I just wish that so many people weren't so easy to slot into the matrix, if you know what I'm saying.
I don't know why someone who thinks like you hangs out on Hacker News. Wouldn't you be more at home on Passive Consumer News? I'd suggest you go make that real, except... never mind.
And of course I'm not going to be setting up a "mini factory", I don't feel like it and I already got the one thing I made that I wanted, which almost certainly would never have been profitable for anyone to make at quantity in the first place. In the unlikely event someone does want one, they can just make their own following the same process as above.
It sounds like you're describing winners and losers, but it's shaky ground when you realize many people simply aren't motivated to think like an economist.
Given the choice between spending my life doing interesting things and accumulating wealth, I'm quite comfortable knowing how I'll look back on things from the end.
BTW: you say "of course you're not going to be setting up a mini factory" to someone who quite literally has a mini factory in their house. I'm on Hacker News to hang out with other people who think that's awesome, not some misaligned economic philosophy.
Do a lot of people do it? Maybe the answer is a tentative yes, given news like the recent case about guns and 3D printing.
Honestly, it's baffling that anyone would put real effort into printing guns when it seems as though some countries cough make it easy to pick one up at Walmart.
I think it's cool in a nerdy way, and I might even do it if: I was into shooting (I find it boring), and my government hadn't outlawed anything related to 3d printing and firearms entirely.
Of course there is a crew of people that want to print guns (not just accessories) for libertarian or criminal purposes - That seems like a lot of time to waste given how easily you can access guns (in the USA anyway). I'm not convinced that's a huge community, but I could be wrong.
In my observation these news lead to maker nerds "prepper-buying" (get such a machine before they become forbidden) quite a lot of such machines recently. :-)
A little while ago I had to dissuade someone from learning Chemistry via an LLM, because the advice that they had been given by the LLM would have very literally either blown up the glassware, throwing molten chemicals all over their clothing, or killed them when they tried to taste whatever they were trying to synthesize. There was no consideration of safety protocol, PPE, proper glassware, or correctly dealing with chemical reactions, and nary a mention of a fucking fume hood. NileRed and a few other chemistry youtubers have utterly woeful approaches to laboratory safety (NileRed specifically I have a chip on my shoulder about — I've seen him practice bad lab work on a number of occasions and violate many of the common safety practices from e.g. Vogel's), but even then they do still take precautions! Let it not be forgotten that safety practices are born through bloodshed. Now we have a whole new wave of people who are excited to learn, and that's great, but one stray hallucination will kill them. I'm sure that the LLM will be more than happy to write an "Oh I'm sorry, it's my bad that I forgot to tell you to double glove when handling organic mercury!" but by then it is too late.
The idea of someone learning, say, House DIY from an LLM and then sawing through the joists or rewiring their electronics is utterly terrifying to me, quite frankly. Likewise, the idea of someone following an LLM's instructions and then blowing themselves up in a shower of capacitors or chemical glassware is also utterly terrifying to me.
Yes, you could do all these things before. But at least the most commonly available learning materials to you were trustworthy and written by experts!
But raw dogging capacitors in CRTs is such an overtly straw man argument in this conversation. People who are cleaning bathrooms for the first time can hopefully be trusted not to drink the bleach, right?
If someone licks a running table saw because an LLM said it would be fine, we're talking about entirely different problems.
What you seem to be missing is that LLMs are better at/for some things than others. Legal review, 3D geometry, therapy and apparently chemistry are off the list.
It doesn't make sense to project that onto domains where it excels.
I guarantee it is using the same system to write code and teach you about electronics that it is using to teach people about chemistry, and if you can't see how that means the resulting information is suspicious at best, then I don't even know what to say anymore.
It's genuinely alright to stfu sometimes when you don't have anything productive to add to the conversation.
Perhaps I'm just pearl clutching. I guess time will tell.
(I’m not saying it’s not used, but the only thing I’d use TTL for is building old circuits out of the Forrest Mims books.)
The simple lack of reasons to use TTL logic in 2026 was exactly why I didn't know what the deal was. It'd never come up, but I'd see it referenced.
I'm self-taught and in defiance of the people who insist that LLMs turn our brains to passive mush, the more things I learn the more things I have to be curious about.
LLMs remove the gatekeeping around asking "simple" questions that tend to make EEs roll their eyes. I didn't know, so I asked and now I know!
I’m just curious at this point about what the quality of the answer is, just because you made a point about LLM use not turning your brain into mush.
I’ve not really used LLMs to answer questions, since it hasn’t gotten me the answers I wanted, but maybe I’m just set in my ways.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13...
I definitely led some questions to try and squeeze new-to-me perspectives out of it; for example, there could be tricks that make the active high variant more useful in some scenarios.
I think it does a good job of surfacing adjacent questions you might not realize you were eager to ask, as well as showing how it's able to critically evaluate real-world part suitability. I do find that ChatGPT in particular does better with a screengrab of the most likely parts vs a URL to the search engine.
> I would definitely like to understand HCT vs HC (CMOS vs TTL) much better than I do, which currently isn't at all.
I think what ChatGPT should have explained at the beginning is that both HCT and HC are CMOS logic families, it’s just that HCT is designed to interface with TTL (receive TTL signal levels as inputs). The outputs are the same (CMOS outputs are rail to rail, which you can feed into TTL just fine).
Actual TTL logic, like the 7400 series and the variations (LS is one of the more popular variations), uses NPN transistors as inputs and to pull output signals low. It uses resistors to pull the signals high. The result is a lot of current consumption and asymmetrical output signals… maybe a good question to ask ChatGPT is “why does TTL use so much current?” CMOS, by comparison, uses a tiny amount of current except when it is switching.
I would probably choose AHC first as a logic family these days. It’s a slightly better version of HC, but it’s not so fast that it will cause problems.
Just peeking at one of the recommendations in the chat, if you search for 74HCT125 or 74AHC125 on Mouser, you’ll see that the AHC has more options available and more parts in stock. That’s a sign that it’s probably a more popular logic family than HCT, which is something I consider when buying (more popular = better availability).
What I would like to know from you is:
1. On the whole, is the information you see it present more or less coherent and useful? Is it better to have this information than not have it at all?
2. Where does this land in terms of your expectations? Did anything surprise you?
It's clear from your reply that you know what you're talking about, while I'm still clawing my way up from nothing... so it makes sense that you have fewer things that you need to ask about.
I've bootstrapped my entire EE skillset over the past 2-3 years, largely with the help of LLMs to interrogate. It's helped me design and build my first product. I'm confident that without these tools, it's not a question of how long it would have taken so much as the truth: it would have died on the vine.
Follow-up: https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13...
I asked it about the AHC family equivalent and it recommended against using it, suggesting either AHCT or sticking with HCT. For what it's worth, the reference board that I'm tracing uses an HCT, so the LLM isn't wrong.
Note that at the time I'm writing this, I have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the difference between these three... but I'm working through it.
What I like about information from humans is that humans are always trying to figure out how to say things that are relevant and informative. By “relevant”, I mean that we try to avoid saying things that don’t help you. By “informative”, I mean that we try to include information that you want to know, even if you didn’t specifically ask for it.
Picking on the chat for a moment—when you started out with the question, my first thought was, “This person is specifically asking about HC versus HCT, but maybe they want a broader overview of logic families, and maybe they want to understand which logic family to pick for their hobby project.” That’s an example where I think ChatGPT could have identified something that you wanted to know, but didn’t. (It wasn’t as informative as it could have been.)
Then there’s some times that ChatGPT gave you information of dubious relevance.
> Important: On the HCT125, the enable is active-LOW.
I don’t think that’s contextually important. It’s like saying, “Important: On the Honda Civic, the gas tank is on the left.” That’s contextually important when you’re at the gas station, but not when you’re buying a car.
I’m not sure why the LLM is recommending the TTL-compatible chips. IMO, the right thing to do here is probably to run everything at 3.3V, unless you have something that specifically needs 5V. When everything is at 3.3V, you don’t have to think about level shifting and you can just pick a very boring logic family like AHC. But I don’t know what you’re building. Likewise, I would lean towards using normal CMOS logic levels, unless I had a specific reason to choose TTL-compatible. The regular CMOS versions have better noise margin, because the threshold is in the optimum place—right in the middle.
For example, I'm working with a specialty SPCO switch IC that runs at 5V. There's never been and likely never will be a 3.3V version of the AS16M1. Being able to drive the switch (which functions like a shift register) from my ESP32 is top-of-mind.
The HCT125 being active low is directly responding to my question about why to choose it vs the 126 version; since the board I'm studying (which again, it has seen) uses 125s, it's reasonable to wonder why they'd choose one over the other.
Overall, the tone of chats on EE topics tend to be task-focused with permission to go on interesting side quests. I'm trying to get stuff done with room for relevant exploration along the way.
Does that change anything for you?
It’s not a person. You understand that, right? I have to ask considering the amount of people who are “dating” and wanting to marry chatbots.
It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.
This particular combination of snark, faux-concern and pedantry doesn't help the point you're trying to make about my loving AI wife.
> It’s not a person, It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.
Without wanting to be argumentative, I would push back and say that I really did stop to consider my implied assignment of personhood before committing to it. I went with it because it reflects both the role it plays - you'll be relieved that I stopped short of deploying "mentor" - and the fact that English is highly adaptable and already the linguistic tug to use They feels very comfortable in relation to LLMs. Buckle up!
Funnily enough, I think that might’ve been better. I don’t think a mentor has to necessarily be human; one can learn from nature or pets. Or even a machine: Stockfish can teach you to play better chess and give context as to why you fumbled and how to do better next time.
I just don’t think LLMs are people and that we should avoid anthropomorphising them (for a whole plethora of reasons which are another discussion). I’m not even saying I think there could never be a robot which is a person. Just not what we have now.
Can't wait for the load-bearing drywall recommendations coming from LLMs that were trained on years of Groverhaus content.
In the end, I think it’s not about how a project was created. But how much passion and dedication went into it. It’s just that the bar got lowered.
One of the common examples in management books is the signage industry. You can have custom logos custom molded, extruded, embossed, carved, or at least printed onto a large, professional-looking billboard or marquee size sign. You can have a video billboard. You can have a vacuum formed plastic sign rotating on top of a pole. At the end of the day, though, your barrier to entry is a teenager with a piece of posterboard and some felt-tipped markers.
What has happened is that as the coding part has become easier, the barrier to entry has lowered. There are still parts of the market for the bespoke code running in as little memory and as few CPU cycles as possible, with the QA needed for life-critical reliability. There’s business-critical code. There’s code reliable enough for amusement. But the bottom of the market keeps moving lower. As that happens, people with less skill and less dedication can make something temporary or utilitarian, but it’s not going to compete where people have the budget to do it the higher-quality way.
How much an LLM or any other sort of agent helps at the higher ends of the market is the only open question. The bottom of the market will almost certainly be coded with very little skilled human input.
There are many people who code to make cool stuff and enjoy sharing, but there is even more people who code to look good on CV.
I’m not trying to be mean, this is just an anecdote I had from my time hiring.
JB: Yeah but guess who did write it, me!
KG: Yeah but did you write this?
JB: Dude, I did, I told you to do the bendy every once in a while!
[Edit: no need for the downvote, folks, it was an honest question although it seemed otherwise. I think the answers below make sense.]
This isn't the first time something like this has happened.
I would imagine that people had similar thoughts about the first photographs, when previously the only way to capture an image of something was via painting or woodcutting.
Paraphrased, "There's basically no business in the Western world that wouldn't come out ahead with a competent software engineer working for $15 an hour".
Once agents, or now claws I guess, get another year of development under them they will be everywhere. People will have the novelty of "make me a website. Make it look like this. Make it so the customer gets notifications based on X Y and Z. Use my security cam footage to track the customer's object to give them status updates." And so on.
AI may or may not push the frontier of knowledge, TBD, but what it will absolutely do is pull up the baseline floor for everybody to a higher level of technical implementation.
How much longer do we have to put up with people saying this? It's been four years now.
some people build apps to solve a problem. why should they not share how they solved that problem?
i have written a blog post about a one line command that solves an interesting problem for me. for any experienced sysadmin that's just like a finger painting.
do we really need to argue if i should have written that post or not?
Which as you say, is a good thing. I still fear what will happen if 3D printing commoditizes into a similar structure as 2D printing.
Nowadays, we are so used to all the injection molded plastic crap, and also so much poorer, that we can't understand why precisely manufactured products made from solid metal or wood are so expensive.
You can get 3D printers from BestBuy(!) for $200 retail. At that point, the cost of the filament is going to quickly exceed the cost of the machine.
At the $200 price point, your Bill of Materials is roughly $65 (about 1/3 of the retail cost). I challenge you to buy the raw materials of a 3D printer for under $100 let alone $65.
I don't know if it's a local trend or what but the last 5-7 years the most in demand thing by far are sewing machines, knitting machines, and sergers. They ended up completely scrapping the woodworking area to fit a digital jacquard loom and that thing is booked around the clock, you have to plan 4-5 weeks in advance to get a session. Jeweler's bench is similarly busy.
In contrast the soldering and electronics workstations get regular use but I can usually just walk in and get a spot without scheduling or waiting much, which is almost never the case with the fabric stuff.
Bump.
Because we had our first high profile murder using a 3d printed weapon just last year.
For example, if you wanted a pretty dress with a specific fabric and cut, you would likely have had to sew it yourself or pay a tailor because your off-the-rack options would be limited, costly, or ill-fitting. But people just did that without fanfare and it wasn't a counterculture. Or if you wanted custom cabinets or resin-coated live-edge stair treads, etc. You'd just figure out how to make it if you wanted it. Or you could pay someone else to do it.
Check out the Maker Project Lab weekly video showcasing awesome stuff from the maker community, it's inspiring and fun to see. https://www.youtube.com/@MakerProjectLab
And mastering a technology has lost its point.
Physical making is hard: you run up against the limits of plastic or the difficulty of cnc planning for various materials, as well as the limited value for small projects: people rarely make entire projects, instead making parts. So there is an upper bound for the utility of making. (btw, anyone have a laser welder or steel-capable CNC's they're tired of?)
Software making is what you make it, subject to the laws of complexity, and as valuable as its integration (computers, robotics). These in theory are limiting, but in practice there are effectively an infinite supply of valuable projects when the cost of production reduces. Deployments will be limited by access to customers, which is not a problem when people make software for themselves.
Actually, the future isn't vibe coding, it's vibe agenting. GPT 5.3 is so advanced, you don't need to write a program to do something. You tell the agent what you want, and it does it for you by "using" desktop apps like a person. If it can't do it manually, it'll write a program to do it. That's where we're headed.
With AI you can build tools fast. You can then version and release those tools, and improve them, fast. Then the AI can use that version of that tool. This gives the AI a fixed set of deterministic functionality that works the same way every time.
The CSO that had all their mail deleted happened because the tools they have right now aren't very good. Whatever that mail tool was, could be easily modified to have a limiter added that stops attempts to mass-delete emails. Hell, your own email client already will prompt you to confirm if you really want to "delete all emails" - because humans are stupid, like AI, and make mistakes, like AI. They just have to build the guardrails in, rather than hoping and praying that the AI will "behave itself". If the AI is a monkey at a joystick, we still control all the machinery attached to the joystick.
That is what people do every day with LLM. When they ask LLM to do something, they are being software developers without them or you even realizing it. But what are they doing but building something with the LLM that takes digital input and returns digital output. It is software. Summarize this email for me gpt. That is a tool.
Couldn't be happier. I make things because I want to see them exist, not because it was hard.
I think I’m learning less (about the code) but making more. Maybe that’s okay? There are other things to learn about. My code has users, it processes money. I user test, I iterate, I see what works and what they need.
All these maker types dropping that differentiator immediately in the name of pragmatism.
And this is the worst this technology is ever going to be :)
Don't take my word for it, go try building something that you always wanted to build but did not have time for. If you do not have something like that at the back of your head, I doubt you have to be concerned about this topic.
Never has it been more exciting to be a builder (software)! So much momentum and so little getting blocked. I am learning faster than ever even with LLMs doing so much of the heavy lifting. It is so fast to iterate and just MAKE STUFF!!!
It’s obvious with each iteration of llms that vibe code , write-only-code is here to stay in many industries if not everywhere.
> You can watch something structurally similar happening with vibe coding right now. People are rapidly prototyping tools that threaten to displace entire SaaS business models. But the value generated by all that rapid iteration and prototyping flows upward. It accumulates at the model layer, in the training data, in the infrastructure. The vibe coders themselves risk becoming interchangeable, each one spinning up impressive demos without accumulating durable value of their own. The pattern rhymes: cheap tools democratize one layer, and the layer beneath captures the surplus.
dot dot dot.
As for the parallels with the maker movements, here's one example: drones are one of my hobbies. I love drones and I've built countless fpv ones. For anyone that hasn't done that, the main thing to know is that no two self-build drones are the same - custom 3d printed parts, tweaks, tons of fiddling about. The main difference is that while I am self-taught when it comes to drones, I have some decent knowledge in physics, I understand the implications of building a drone and what could go wrong: you won't see me flying any of my drones in the city - you may find me in some remote, secluded area, sure. The point is I am taking precautions to make sure that when I eventually crash my drone(not IF but WHEN), it will be in a tree 10km from anything that breathes. Slop code is something you live with and there are infinite ways to f-up. And way too many people are living in denial.
I assume some could use it to make for commercial sale products but when I heard of it I really just pictured it mainly for small personal projects mainly.
I have always had an interest in electronics but without going to college there was really obvious no path to get into creating small diy projects. Then years back came along Raspberry Pi. I bought one along with a big variety of different sensors and a breadboard and all the things one would need to create something. I pictures making things that would email my mom when her plants were getting dry and many other dreams with all the sensors.
But it was still overwhelming. Lots of knowledge you need before you even start so it felt hard. But eventually I set off to try something and with many hours of searching for how to code what I wanted and essentially copying code and maybe slightly altering it to my needs I did finish one project. It was basic but I was always proud of what I accomplished. I had an IR sensor that would detect if someone walked in front of it and when that happened I also had a power relay that was connected to a lamp. When motion detected the lamp would then blink SOS in Morse code and it would also send me an email saying motion detected. What a feeling when I ran it and it worked on the first try.
But that took so much time searching and trying to find the code I wanted. I see vibe coding and imagine I could do the same thing in minutes verses hours. I don't think I will ever make some project that is ever going to make me money but do imagine with vibe coding the barrier to creating some of those projects I dreamed up in my head for personal use is much closer and obtainable.
Instead what we were left with was an endless hunt for 'models', and no companies publishing their specs. Everything had to be done custom, and at best some niche manufacturing for weird side quests like adds ons for OneWheels, or cases for raspberry pis.
The closest thing to practical I have 3D printed is a wedge to better aim my google doorbell. I used to make some beautiful planters. I certainly am not 3D printing a droid, or a dishwasher impeller, or a fan blade for my 30 year old fridge.
So yes, while Claude code is fun, and you can build neat prototypes, it takes a lot of work to build a full product and then maintain it, scale it, deploy it. That takes persistent joy in what you're doing because you're not necessarily claude coding everything.
Learning modelling is a huge time sink, learning to make threaded parts, or anything modular to not have to re-print everything for changes. It's great but the printing is the easy part
If vibe coding ends, it will end because model collapse, diminishing returns, escalating costs as the VC money run out, etc. cause LLMs to fail to deliver the promised capacity to, per Dijkstra, "program if you cannot". There will be a culling as amateurs and dilettantes with no technical knowledge or interest lose interest in programming itself, and the field will collapse back into a niche. Amateurs and dilettantes crashed out early of the maker movement, if they got involved at all; "making" was for technically inclined people in the first place.
Sure, you can do that, it's an option, but no serious engineering effort is being left entirely up to the AI.
Vibe coding is essentially the Jackson Pollock approach to software building. Throw a bunch of paint down, with very little control, and look, we have something novel.
It doesn't mean your going to replace all the ways of making art with paint throwing.
I'd love to start seeing more discussions about alternative approaches to working with AI. The recent Vinext article was great https://blog.cloudflare.com/vinext/. This seems to be "the way" for working with AI in a high stakes production environment, but what other ways are there.
I fear the focus on vibe coding is diluting and taking focus away from far better alternatives. Maybe because the narrative around those aren't quite so dramatic?
What strikes me reading this thread is how many of you have independently landed on the same conclusions: human accountability for generated code is non-negotiable, architecture has to drive generation (not the other way around), traceability matters, and you can't maintain what you don't understand.
These aren't just gut feelings — they're actually the core of something a few of us have been trying to formalize: the Agile Vibe Coding Manifesto (https://agilevibecoding.org). It explicitly builds on top of the original Agile Manifesto to address exactly this environment.
The four values it proposes — accountability over anonymous generation, traceable intent over opaque implementation, discoverable domain structure over scattered code, and human-readable documentation over implicit knowledge — map directly to what experienced engineers in this thread are describing: staying deeply in the loop, reading the core code, and defining architectural boundaries before letting AI generate within them.
It doesn't reject AI-assisted coding. It tries to answer: what disciplines do Agile teams need so that AI-generated code doesn't become a liability? Worth a look if this resonates.
The real parallel might be the early web era where anyone could make a website but finding them required Yahoo directories and later Google. Right now vibe coded apps have the same discovery problem - they exist but there's no effective way to find or evaluate them.
I realize that the wildest promises of 3D printing and maker stuff like Arduono never came to fruition, but maker spaces have matured greatly. If that is the analogy we are making, that means that vibecoding won’t reach “the masses” necessarily but it will be popular beyond the present audience.
- I bet that holds true after tariffs. (it does, actually): PCB Cost: $5.00 Shipping:$5.63 Total:$10.63
- I bet that holds true for custom aluminum parts, etc
for some strange reason, shipping and prices from China << shipping within the USA, still, even after tariffs
"Maker nation" might have been 3D printer company hype. Or just the whole US supply chain is full of price gouging
from individual tinkerers and ideas guys cranking out all the projects they would have never subsidized, there's a lot of that
and with corporations I'm seeing there are lots of products that would have taken 8 quarters to do, all being compressed into one now. The flip side is that all 8 quarters wouldn't have been allowed to happen as priorities would have shifted before the product or feature roadmap was ever allowed to get that far, but instead now all of it is being built out and other iterations and directions are being done simultaenously
after all of this is shown not to be saving money, or creating much value because they're doing too much without market validation, then a more intelligent approach will occur and less vibe coding will occur
But the truth is that claude code made programming much more fun to me: I skip the boring parts of writing code and hopping around files and focus on funcionality, architecture and code quality. Software engineering has never been about typing. I don't consider myself a typist (even though I'm very good at it). I'm an architect above all, and using claude code has allowed me to focus on the parts of the job I enjoy the most.
Only to be clear, I treat claude code as a junior developer that needs mentoring. I review every single diff it produces keeping an eye for patterns that go off standards, hardcoded values scattered throught the code, repeated function blocks, adequate tests and so on. I don't plan on leaving it all to claude code, because at the end of the day the one responsible for code in production is going to be me, not claude. But it's been a hell of a ride (not to mention the 30x productivity improvement, literally).
I’m not remotely thinking about AGI. I dabbled in the maker movement and it just doesn’t compare in the sheer velocity we have with GenAI and mass production of code.
It's like comparing Christianity to water wheels or gay pride to to the Saturn V rocket. It's just not really analogous in any way.
I do agree with the author about commoditization, however.
The most likely outcome is that software will be commoditized and software developers commoditized even harder. If we still need software engineers to prompt, you'll find plenty of people in India able to do those tasks, not necessarily with great quality until they too are replaced by better AI.
This whole situation inspired me to actually dive harder into Maker type stuff such as learning how to design PCBs, but one thing I found is that this TOO is very close to being automated by AI. To actually get hardware made, even prototyping PCBs, you NEED to go to China, and the Trump tariffs cut into the cost of doing these activities hard.
Developing nations that were looking to tech to climb the economic ladder, are watching that ladder be pulled up.
Most of the upside will go to the US and China. Europe is lagging shockingly on AI spend, they're extremely far behind (but with constant plan announcements). If you didn't know any better, you'd think Europe believed the year was 2010.
Maybe you could research how to make your own PCBs? It can be done at home with a little equipment and then you can offer it as a service to others.
Bambu Labs a month others have made 3d printing far more click and print with little to no tinkering.
If at all it will make me do more little hyper specific projects.
edit: I read this title wrong, thought it said "end the maker movement"
personally I enjoy creation and writing code so I'm not going to vibe code my hobby/passion project, I don't care if theoretically it'll save me x amount of time, the code is rote for me anyway but I have to be actively engaged in it to enjoy it
Im also not sure if “vibe coding” did not have a phase where early adopters were mucking around? I saw the early versions of gpt much earlier than chatgpt and a lot of folks were using transformers for coding before claude.
Anyway I think we are seeing a scenius phase -- it's just happening everywhere all at once on a world stage. And it's exciting. As with any moment in time there's a ton of experimentation and a small number of break-out hits. Also the pace of change means there's less staying power for a break-out hit than there used to be.
But the quick break-out hit phenomenon is particularly applicable for things that are more about the attention economy and less about the boring hidden things that traditionally have been where the economy's silent toil is really centered.
All of this makes me feel the author is too close to the creative end-consumer layer e.g. "make something flashy and cool whether it's a 3d-printer in a 5th avenue dept. store window, or a new app front end" but perhaps less focused on the full depth of things that really exist around them.
This really resonates with me in that a lot of NYC's "tech" circa 2013 was 3d printing oriented, much more so than in Silicon Valley. And I wondered why? but then it was a reflection that tech in NYC then was more about marketing, story telling, and less about the depth...
Obviously you had the west coast makers, you had the burners, so I don't mean to conflate all these differnet things. But the idea that Maker Faires were really about bringing manufacturing back... I don't know I think it was more about the counterculture, about having fun. I think that's coming back to tech right now as well in a sense. Even if it's also got dystopian overtones
None of these sophisticated articles mention that you could already steal open source with the press of a button before LLMs. The theft has just been automated with what vibe coders think is plausible deniability.
No, because too much money has been pumped into it.
The author already touched on a better answer. Scenius worked because of the "permission to fuck around." Nobody expected your Arduino to ship. But the conclusion hands you four value-capture strategies and quietly revokes that permission. "Play freely, but collect the exhaust" isn't permission—it's a conditional license.
I once learned songwriting from an indie musician who refused autotune and wrote by hand. He said the point of busking isn't playing because there's an audience. It's playing when nobody stops. You play anyway. That's how you find your sound.
This gets at the root of "evaluative anesthesia." It's not that our tools are too powerful. It's that we're asking "is this valuable?" at every step. A busker doesn't ask that. Taste and judgment accumulate as a residue of immersion, not deliberate capture.
What vibe coding needs isn't a smarter consumption strategy. It might just be the courage to play to an empty street.
Lots of powerplants to fuel the surplus.
There are plenty of products now that only exist because of what it did deliver on. Any one who spends time in the niche communities where it is thriving can see that... On the low end look at Apollo automation, the story of Grismo Knives, at the high end look a Hadrian Manufacturing.
Vibe coding is a terrible name, but what a skilled dev can do with a deeply integrated AI coding assistant is amazing. It changes the calculus of "Is it worth your time" (see: https://xkcd.com/1205/ ).
Is it helpful in my day to day: it sure is. Is it far more helpful in doing all the things that have been on the back burner for YEARS? My gods yes! But none of that is matching the hype thats out there around "vibe coding".
Vibe coding does none of the above
> The central promise—that distributed digital fabrication would bring manufacturing back to America, that every city would have micro-factories, that 3D printing would decentralize production—simply didn’t materialize.
This version of the Maker Movement only ever existed in news articles and hype bubbles.
The Maker Movement was never about building small factories and consumer 3D printing was never about manufacturing things at scale. Everyone who was into 3D printing knew that we weren't going to be 3D printing all of our plastic parts at home because the limitations of FDM printing are obvious to anyone who has used one. At the time, consumer 3D printers were rare so journalists were extrapolating from what they saw and imagined a line going up and to the right until they could produce anything you wanted in your home.
The Maker Movement where people play with Raspberry Pi, Arduino, and cheap 3D printers is possibly stronger than ever. Everything is so cheap and accessible now. 10 years ago getting a 3D printer to produce parts was a chore that required a lot of knowledge and time. Now for a couple hundred dollars anyone can have a 3D printer at home that is mostly user friendly and lets them focus on printing things.
The real version of the Maker Movement just isn't that interesting to mainstream because, well, it's a bunch of geeks doing geeky things. There's also sadly a lot of unnecessary infighting and drama that occurs in maker-related companies, like the never ending Arduino company drama, the recent Teensy drama that goes back years, or the way some people choose their 3D printer supplier as their personal identity would rather argue about them online than print.
> This version of the Maker Movement only ever existed in news articles and hype bubbles.
That version of the Maker Movement was heavily pushed by city and the state government in Massachusetts. They put money into it; foundations funded it.
It was seen as a way to give students another pathway for those who weren't interested in going to college. I've seen first hand how some kids who weren't interested school or academics really got into the Maker thing, which got them into STEM.
Some of them ended up going to college to study engineering and related fields. Some of them ended up working in related fields and started their own businesses.
As time went on, it became clear to me that the Maker Movement wasn’t going to go mainstream, although 3D printing has found another niche audience recently in the home lab space. Many home-labbers on YouTube 3D print their own cases and other parts.
There will be normies that take up vibe coding like some knit their own sweaters or grow their own food because they enjoy it.
And there will be Fortune 500 companies that will vibe code certain products.
If someone tells me they ran a marathon, I'm impressed because I know that took work. If someone tells me they jogged 100 meters, I don't care at all (unless they were previously crippled or morbidly obese etc.).
I think there are just a ton of none-engineers who are super hyped right now that they built something/anything, but don't have any internal benchmark or calibration about what is actually "good" or "impressive" when it comes to software, since they never built anything before, with AI or otherwise.
Even roughly a year ago, I made a 3D shooting game over an evening using Claude and never bothered sharing it because it seemed like pure slop and far too easy to brag about. Now my bar for being "impressed" by software is incredibly high, knowing you can few shot almost anything imaginable in a few hours.
It's hard to not be dismissive or gate-keeping with this stuff, my goal isn't to discourage anyone or to fight against the lower barriers to entry, but it's simply a different thing when someone prompts a private AI model to make a thing in an hour.
I think now you are freed up to make a shooter that people will actually want to play. Or at least attempt it.
We probably need to come to terms with the idea that no one cares about those details. Really, 2 years ago no one would have cared about your hand crafted 3d shooter either I think.
Why share something that anyone can just “prompt into existence”?
Architecture wise and also just from a code quality perspective I have yet to encounter AI generated code that passes my quality bar.
Vibe coding is great for a PoC but we usually do a full rewrite until it’s production ready.
————
Might be a hot take, but I don’t think people who can’t code should ship or publish code. They should learn to do it and AI can be a resource on the way.. but you should understand the code you “produce”. In the end it’s yours, not the AIs code.
An example 3D workflow: Prototype design -> 3D print -> test/break -> production design -> real manufacturing process
The equivalent vibe code Vibecobe -> slop -> test/break -> real developers -> real development process
--
The real test for vibe coded stuff (much like 3D printed crap at craft fairs) will be if someone actually buys it. But much like those 'makers', vibe coders will have to go through the "real development process" if they want to make money at scale.
The more interesting question is what vibe coding actually democratizes. It's not engineering---it's implementation. The bottleneck shifts from 'can you write the code' to 'do you understand the domain well enough to specify what the code should do, and verify it's doing that correctly.'
I've watched domain experts---people with deep subject matter knowledge who previously couldn't build because they lacked CS fundamentals---suddenly able to ship working tools. Code quality is often brittle. But the problem understanding is sharp, because they're building something they actually needed.
The maker analogy would have been more accurate if 3D printers only failed when you asked them to print something you didn't fully understand. That's where vibe coding fails too.
It is not just vibe coding that is being developed, but general intellegence.
Quick answer: No. Long answer: its the opposite; as an example, can use claude code to generate, build and debug ESP32 code for a given purpose; suddenly everyone can build smart gizmos without having to learn c/c++ and having knowledge of a ton of libraries.
I have Arduino and raspberry Pi boards. I am perfectly capable of hand writing code that runs on these machines. But they are sitting in the drawer gathering dust, because I don't have a use case -- everything I could possibly do with them is either not actually useful on a daily basis, or there are much better & reliable solutions for the actual issue. I literally spent hours going through other people's projects (most of which are very trivial), and decided that I have better things to do with my time. Lots and lots of people have the same issue.
And Claude Code is not going to change a single bit of that.