> Nah, the article is generalizing from a single sample of current state, ignoring the larger trajectory (that, for AI coding, went from sci-fi to reality in two years).

You seemed to have missed the part of the article that clearly lays out the recent progression of AI coding. You’re also refuting the arguments the article makes against the future of vibe coding, but the article doesn’t make any arguments about the future of vibe coding!

We all just end up talking past each other if no one is actually talking about the same thing.