Vibe coding does not usually produce performant code, it produces spaghetti with the goal of making the user asking for work to be done to go away as soon as possible with a (often barely) working solution.

I recently vibe-translated a simple project from Javascript to C, where Javascript was producing 30fps, and the first C version produced 1 frame every 20 seconds. After some time trying to get the AI to optimize it, I arrived at 1fps from the C project. Not a win, but the AI did produce working C code.

I have no doubt that if I had done this myself (which I will do soon), with the appropriate level of care, it would have been 30fps or more.

The problem is that vibe-coding, when it fails (i.e. it's non-useful, at least for a bit), is usually solved by more vibes. Try again and hope it works. Ask it to refactor and hope the cleaner code helps it along. If you're willing to think about the code yourself you'll likely ask it questions about the codebase. High vibe-code usage is both a metric that it is working and that it's failing.

I think it is telling that this audience down votes this. It's kind of obvious that the thing is being used a lot. Doesn't mean it works as well as advertised. Doesn't mean the business model they have works. Just means there is a lot of demand. You can't ignore that.

I have no particular insight into the Anthropic backend, but it's possible in general for systems to have architectural issues which cannot be mitigated by just adding more hardware.

That is only true if there's a pricepoint that vibecoders are willing to pay per token that allows Anthropic to make a profit.

maybe you should study up on correlation and causation before you declare "proof"; it's also possible that it goes the other way.

That's mostly been my job since I started around 2010 haha