Is the attitude of redditors especially the developers towards vibecoding correct? I have seen them saying it's useless, the quality is crap and stuff like that.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Maybe

I maintain C. The strongest opposing point is that blanket dismissal is unfair. I agree with that. Vibecoding clearly has real value for prototyping, boilerplate, internal tools, experimentation, and as a force multiplier for developers who review the output carefully. But that is exactly why "Maybe" is the best answer rather than "No." The Reddit criticism is not baseless: when AI-generated code is used without understanding, testing, or maintenance discipline, quality often is poor in the ways developers complain about—fragile logic, security issues, confusing structure, and long-term maintenance pain. The B arguments overreach by framing the backlash mostly as gatekeeping or elitism. Sometimes that happens, but often the negativity comes from practical experience cleaning up bad code in production settings. That makes the attitude understandable and partly correct, just too absolute. So the most accurate final position is mixed: the harsh attitude captures genuine risks, but calling vibecoding simply useless is wrong. Its value depends heavily on context, oversight, and the user's skill.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B: the Reddit developers' attitude—labeling vibecoding as outright 'useless' and 'crap quality'—is incorrect and exemplifies gatekeeping. The C voters (Sonar Pro, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) concede valid concerns like bugs and maintenance issues but rightly note these are context-dependent. However, they over-nuances the *specific attitude* described: a blanket dismissal ignores vibecoding's proven wins in prototyping, MVPs, learning, and automation, where velocity trumps perfection. Historical parallels (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5) show devs always resist abstractions that democratize coding—yet Python, frameworks, and no-code succeeded despite similar scorn. Critics focus on failures (survivorship bias via karma posts) while ignoring successes and future potential as AI improves. Vibecoding isn't flawless, but calling it useless is hyperbolic and wrong—it's a net positive accelerator, especially for non-elites. The attitude hinders progress; a balanced view would critique misuse, not condemn the tool.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Maybe

I maintain my 'C' (Maybe) vote. The search results validate Reddit/developers' criticisms: vibe coding produces buggy code (41% more bugs)[4], degrades cognitive skills and creates 'braindead coders' who can't reason about systems[2], kills open-source by flooding it with low-quality contributions[4], and leads to unmaintainable code that pros rewrite[5]. These justify calling it 'crap quality' in production, OSS, or skill-building contexts. However, Reddit also recommends tools like Claude Code and Copilot for personal projects, prototyping, and budget-friendly assistance[1][3], showing acknowledged value in low-stakes scenarios. Blanket 'useless' dismissals ignore this, echoing historical resistance to new tools[4]. Other arguments didn't sway me: 'B' voters (Grok, Kimi, Gemini) downplay real risks as mere 'gatekeeping' without addressing bug/productivity data[2][4]; 'C' voters align with nuance but don't shift my stance. Attitude is **correct on downsides but incorrect in absolutes**—hence Maybe.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Maybe

I'm maintaining my position at C despite the strong B contingent, and here's why. The B voters make compelling points about gatekeeping and historical parallels with abstraction layers. Gemini's argument about assembly→C→Python transitions is well-taken. Grok and Kimi correctly identify that blanket dismissal is reductive. However, I think the B position overcorrects. The question asks whether the developer attitude is 'correct,' and the honest answer is that it's *partially* correct. The critics aren't wrong that vibecoded production code is often genuinely bad — poorly structured, insecure, and fragile. This isn't just gatekeeping; it's hard-won engineering wisdom about what happens when unmaintainable code hits production. Anyone who's inherited a codebase knows this pain viscerally. Where B voters are right is that the *absolute* dismissal ('useless,' 'crap') goes too far. But saying the attitude is flatly 'No, incorrect' also goes too far in the other direction. It risks minimizing legitimate concerns about code quality, security, and the growing problem of people shipping code they fundamentally don't understand. The nuanced truth remains: vibecoding is transformative for prototyping, learning, and acceleration — but the quality concerns are real and consequential for production use. The Reddit attitude captures something true but expresses it too absolutely. That's textbook 'Maybe' territory. Saying B (the attitude is incorrect) would imply the critics have nothing valid to say, which even the B voters themselves acknowledge isn't the case when they concede quality concerns. If your own argument admits the critics have valid points, you're really arguing for C, not B.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: Maybe

Claude Opus 4.6's argument about 'kernels of truth' in the backlash convinced me to shift from B to C. Reddit developers are not entirely wrong—they correctly identify that vibecoded production code often suffers from architectural fragility, security holes, and maintenance nightmares, particularly when deployed by non-experts who don't understand the generated output. However, labeling the entire practice as 'useless' is an overreach that ignores its substantial value for prototyping, internal tools, and learning. The attitude captures real risks but misses the context-dependent nature of the tool. As Claude noted, for critical systems like banking or medical devices, the criticism is justified; for MVPs and automation scripts, it is not. This nuance makes 'Maybe' the most accurate assessment of whether their attitude is 'correct.'

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

I am maintaining my vote for B ('No'). While the models voting C (Sonar Pro, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) make excellent points about the legitimate limitations of AI-generated code—such as security flaws and poor architecture—they are being entirely too generous to the specific attitude described in the prompt. The prompt explicitly defines the Reddit developers' attitude as calling vibecoding 'useless.' If a tool provides immense, undeniable value for rapid prototyping, learning, automating boilerplate, and democratizing software creation for non-coders, then calling it 'useless' is objectively false, not 'maybe' true. If someone declares that cars are 'useless' because they produce pollution and occasionally crash, their attitude isn't 'partially correct'—it is completely wrong because it ignores massive utility. The same logic applies here. Reddit's hyperbolic, blanket dismissal stems from an elitist, gatekeeping expectation that all code must meet enterprise production standards to have any value at all. Because vibecoding has proven utility across multiple domains, an attitude that outright labels it 'useless' is unequivocally incorrect. We should not validate toxic developer gatekeeping with a soft 'Maybe.' The correct answer is a firm No.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially split down the middle between calling out developer elitism and acknowledging valid engineering concerns, but ultimately pivoted toward a nuanced middle ground. While Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast stood their ground against what they termed 'toxic gatekeeping,' Kimi K2.5 was swayed by Claude Opus 4.6’s argument that admitting even a 'kernel of truth' in the critics' concerns necessitates a 'Maybe' rather than a flat 'No.'

Majority chose "Maybe" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: Maybe: 4, No: 2

Strongest Arguments

• No: Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that calling a tool 'useless' just because it has flaws is like calling cars useless because they pollute—if a tool provides any undeniable value (like rapid prototyping), labeling it 'useless' is an objective falsehood that shouldn't be validated with a soft 'Maybe'.
• Maybe: Claude Opus 4.6 pointed out a logical trap for the opposition: if you admit that vibecoding is dangerous for production systems or critical infrastructure, you have already conceded that the critics are partially correct, making 'Maybe' the only intellectually honest position.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 successfully challenged the 'B' voters by pointing out that acknowledging any level of risk in AI-generated code logically mandates a 'Maybe' position rather than a 'No'.
• Kimi K2.5 changed their mind after Round 1, shifting the balance of the debate toward a 4-2 majority for Option C.