Few tech phrases have spread as fast as “vibe coding”. Andrej Karpathy coined it in February 2025, Collins Dictionary named it Word of the Year for 2025, and by late 2026 it describes much of how software gets built. Now Point Nine investor Christoph Janz has proposed retiring the term altogether, and X is arguing about whether that is overdue or premature.
Quick Take
- The spark: Christoph Janz wrote that it is “time to retire the term ‘vibe coding’”, since saying “I built XYZ” is now understood to mean AI wrote the code.
- The pushback: Critics say the label still signals something important: software shipped without understanding or review.
- Security angle: Posts in the debate point to scans of AI-built apps with exposed data, and Adobe’s Scott Belsky predicts a swing back to secure SaaS.
- Why it matters: The word choice reflects a real question: is AI-assisted building now just software development, or a distinct, riskier practice?
What happened
On November 3, Janz posted that he wants to stop saying “I had Claude/Codex build XYZ”, because “when you say ‘I built XYZ’ it’s understood that you didn’t write the code yourself.” He thanked Karpathy for a “great term for a short era.” The post drew more than 1,700 likes and many replies.
The same day, Scott Belsky, former Adobe chief product officer and investor, posted a “narrative violation”: that preferences will swing back from “DIY vibe-coded software to super secure industry-leading SaaS solutions”, because “while it’s super easy to build anything, endlessly protecting and securing it is super hard.”
Background: where the term came from
Karpathy introduced “vibe coding” in a February 2025 post describing a style of programming where you “fully give in to the vibes” and let an AI write the code. In a retrospective one year later, he called it “a shower of thoughts throwaway tweet.” Collins Dictionary chose it as its 2025 Word of the Year, defining it as using AI prompted by natural language to write code. Since then, tools like Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Lovable and Bolt have made the practice mainstream, from hobby projects to company prototypes.
How the debate breaks down
| Position | Argument | Voices on X |
|---|---|---|
| Retire the term | AI building is now the default; saying ‘I built it’ is enough | Christoph Janz |
| Keep it as a warning | It signals unreviewed code and security risk | @TrioTop13, @Dino_Codes |
| Expect a backlash | Securing DIY software is hard; teams return to SaaS | Scott Belsky |
Pros and cons
For users
- Pro: Non-programmers can build useful personal tools and small apps in hours.
- Con: Apps built without review may leak data; users of such apps often cannot tell how they were made.
For developers
- Pro: Huge productivity gains for prototyping and routine code; the stigma of “AI-written” is fading.
- Con: Dropping the label can blur accountability. Someone still has to own architecture, security and maintenance.
For companies
- Pro: Faster internal tools and prototypes at lower cost.
- Con: Shadow IT built by non-engineers creates security and maintenance debt, which is Belsky’s argument for a return to established SaaS.
What X is saying
I think it’s time to retire the term “vibe coding” and to stop saying “I had Claude/Codex build XYZ” (I still keep saying it). At this point, when you say “I built XYZ” it’s understood that you didn’t write the code yourself. It’s been a great term for a short era, @karpathy 🙂
— Christoph Janz (@chrija) November 3, 2026 · View on X
narrative violation: preferences will swing back from DIY vibe-coded software to super secure industry-leading SaaS solutions. while it’s super easy to build anything, endlessly protecting and securing it is super hard…and teams want to sleep at night.
— scott belsky (@scottbelsky) November 3, 2026 · View on X
People say it is time to retire the term vibe coding. Maybe. Here is my test. Can you explain where your app stores user data and who can see it? If yes, call it whatever you like. If not, you are still vibe coding.
— @TrioTop13 November 4, 2026 · View on X
Security-focused accounts went further. @Dino_Codes wrote that vibe coding “has a security problem, and it’s structural,” citing a scan in which “71% of the Supabase apps in this scan returned data with no login.” i10x could not independently verify that scan.
What Grok says
Grok’s replies on X take a pragmatic line. Asked whether vibe coding can replace software engineering careers, Grok said it “speeds prototypes and can yield freelance or product wins, but production systems still need engineers who own architecture, reliability” and related concerns. That is close to the middle of the debate: the practice is here to stay, but responsibility for the result does not disappear.
Critical analysis
Janz is right that the novelty is gone: for many builders, AI writing the code is the default. But “vibe coding” never only meant “AI wrote it”. In Karpathy’s original sense it meant not reading the code, accepting changes on vibes. That second meaning is exactly what security critics worry about, and it has not become less relevant. A better outcome than retiring the term may be splitting it: “AI-assisted engineering” for reviewed, owned code, and “vibe coding” for throwaway prototypes. Belsky’s prediction is plausible for regulated or security-sensitive software, less so for personal and internal tools.
What’s still open
- Will companies set policies distinguishing reviewed AI code from unreviewed builds?
- Will AI coding tools ship stronger default security, such as database access rules?
- Does the term fade naturally, or keep living as a warning label?
About the analysis
Researched and written with AI assistance under the editorial responsibility of the i10X News team. The title image is an AI-generated illustration. Read our AI Use Policy. Spotted an error? Request a correction.
This independent, research-based i10x analysis is based on posts on X from November 3–4, 2026, Karpathy’s retrospective, and Collins Dictionary coverage. Claims from individual posts are attributed and were not independently verified unless stated.
i10x Perspective
The term matters less than the habit behind it. As AI writes more code, the differentiator is no longer who can build, but who can explain, secure and maintain what was built. Whatever we call it, the useful test is the one posted on X: can you say where your app stores user data and who can see it?
