This deserves more upvotes.

Even if there is a "fully vibe-coded" product that has real customers, the fact that it's vibe-coded means that others can do the same. Unless you have a secret LLM or some magical prompts that make the code better/more efficient than your competitions, your vibe coded product has no advantage over competition and no moat. What actually matters is everything else -- user experience (which requires hours of meetings and usability studies), integration with own/other people's products, business, marketing, sales etc, much of which you can't vibe code your way to success.

With all due respect somebody could launch a version of Discord that's 10x faster tomorrow and nobody would know about it

It's very difficult to unseat those incumbents, especially those with strong network effects.

Plus the people that work in those larger companies are not at the edge of AI coding at all and not motivated to rock the boat

This argument falls a little flat when you consider how much software may or may not be written inside one's own personal work flow, or to scale that up, inside a small business. The idea that a small business doing >1mil revenue can now hire a dev or two, and build out a fairly functional domain-driven system should not be understated. The democratization of software, and the lowering of the barriers to entry to basic CRUD apps, may not necessarily show up in a TAM report... Do you need a killer app that treads into unicorn territory to prove it's impact? What about a million apps that displace said unicorn potentials by removing the need for a COTS?

Oh, and remember, the iPhone was revolutionary but it was diffused so slowly into the greater economy, the impact on global GDP was basically negligent. Actually, almost all the perceived grandiose tech jumps did not magically produce huge GDP gains overnight.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/how-ai-is-transforming-wo...

see "How much work can be fully delegated to Claude?": "Although engineers use Claude frequently, more than half said they can “fully delegate” only between 0-20% of their work to Claude"

There won't be anything like you're asking for, even the vendors themselves (they'll be the most positive and most enthousiastic about using it) can't do this with them.

I share similar feelings. I feel like I'm reading the same comments about LLM since a year, only model version changes.

Obviously there's improvement in the models and tooling, but the debate seems very artificial.

The bigger the product, the harder this is.

However, I think the biggest thing is the replacement of products. We are in a place where he talked about replacing two products his wife was using with custom software. I personally have used LLMs to build things that are valuable for me that I just don't have time for otherwise.

This is true. I think most people are mostly using AI at work to fix bugs in existing codebases. A smaller group of people are benchmarking AI by giving it ideas for apps that no one needs and seeing if it can get close. The smallest group of people is actually designing new software and asking the AI to iterate on it.

Except for maybe an "Excel killer", all those things you listed are not things people are willing to pay for. Also agents are bad at that kind of work (most devs are bad at that stuff, it's why it was something people whined about even before agents).

And funnily enough there are products and tools that are essentially less bloated slack/discord. Have you heard of https://stoat.chat/ (aka revolt) or https://pumble.com/ or https://meet.jit.si/? If not I would guess it's for one of two reasons: not caring enough about these problems to even go looking for them yourself, or their lack of "bloatedness" resulting in them not being a mature/fully featured enough product to be worth marketing or adopting.

If you'd like to see a product mostly made with agents/for agents you can check out mine at https://statue.dev/ - we're making a static site generator with a templating and component system paired with user-story driven "agentic workflows" (~blueprints/playbooks for common user actions like "I need to add a new page and list it on the navbar" or "create a site from the developer portfolio template personalized for my github").

I would guess most other projects are probably in a similar situation as we are: agentic developer tools have only really been good enough to heavily use/build products around for a few months, so it's a typical few-month-old project. But agents definitely made it easier to build.

Could someone explain this to me? I have the same question: why Cursor team don't use Cursor to get rid of vscode base and code its super duper code editor?

AI amplified development has the most impact on build-vs-buy decisions.

We should expect the decreased difficulty of creating software to drive down prices.

Anecdotally I had Gemini convert a simple react native app to swift in two prompts. If it's that simple then maybe we will see less of the chromium desktop apps

Hi, I’m building such one: https://minfx.ai/

Still early, but iterating really fast!

who told you that mb of ram is a definition of success?

Opus was out only few months, and it will take time to get this new wave to market. i can assure you my team become way more productive because of opus. not a single developer but an etnire team.