But that's not the problem being highlighted in that quote you clipped out and responded to.
The problem that quote (and this entire post and the folks that produced it) is putting a finger on is that vibecoding makes it very easy to build large piles of brittle, entangled code where all those early velocity gains are paid back as evolving the codebase takes more and more time (and, crucially, tokens).
No amount of <insert methodology here> replaces good judgement about architecture/design that ultimately leads to more maintainable, extensible code. That was true before AI and it remains true today.
Now eventually AI may get to the point where it's autonomously generating code that's structurally as good or better than what any experienced human would create.
So far, IME, that is not yet this case and nothing can yet substitute for an experienced human in the loop to steer AI toward better decision-making.
And before it's said, yes, that also means humans made ugly balls of mud in the before time. That term obviously came from somewhere.
But that only proves that AI is as good as prior humans that did a bad job, which on the one hand is impressive, and on the other hand is deeply alarming when you know there's folks out there letting these things loose without any supervision.
Of course if all one is doing is tossing off and walking away from greenfield projects, man, vibecoding is magical. I suspect a lot of the "we never look at code anymore" claims come from this world.
But there's another word for that: slop.
