Why ‘Vibe Coding’ Doesn’t Mean Less Work: Andrew Ng’s Reality Check
In recent discussions, notably at LangChain Interrupt and in an article for Business Insider, renowned AI researcher Andrew Ng pushed back against a troubling trend in the world of AI development: the phenomenon of “vibe coding.” This term, which has garnered attention in AI circles, refers to a lax, almost nonchalant approach to coding that suggests AI tools can write code with little to no human intervention. The term implies that AI development, especially in the context of machine learning and deep learning, can be simplified to a passive exercise, something akin to “vibing” with the AI and letting it do the heavy lifting.
However, Ng’s criticism of this notion paints a much more complex picture. While AI tools have undeniably made certain aspects of software development faster and more efficient, Ng’s stance warns that the intellectual rigor involved in creating meaningful, reliable, and secure AI systems has not diminished in the slightest. In fact, he asserts, coding with AI demands even more focus, insight, and hands-on engagement from developers than one might assume. Ng’s insights call attention to the risks that arise from treating AI-assisted development as an easy shortcut or a way to reduce the effort traditionally required in the field of software engineering.
This blog delves into why “vibe coding” misrepresents the true complexity of AI-assisted development. We will examine the core components that make coding with AI a highly demanding task and why it cannot simply be reduced to a “lazy” approach to software development. From the necessity for deep focus and prompt engineering to the importance of validation and thorough testing, we will explore why Andrew Ng’s pushback against “vibe coding” is a timely and vital message for AI practitioners and the broader tech community.
Coding with AI Demands Deep Focus, Prompt Engineering, and Thorough Validation
One of the most critical aspects that Ng underscores in his critique is the fact that coding with AI still requires significant intellectual and cognitive effort. Despite the seeming simplicity of generating code snippets with the help of AI, these tools are not magic wands that simply produce flawless solutions on command. Instead, they are designed to augment human capabilities, providing suggestions and automating repetitive tasks—yet they are far from a replacement for the expertise and discernment that developers bring to the table.
1. Prompt Engineering: The Art of Crafting Effective Instructions
AI tools like large language models (LLMs) and code generation assistants are only as good as the inputs they receive. The process of interacting with AI to produce code requires prompt engineering, which is a far from trivial task. Prompt engineering refers to the careful crafting of queries or commands that guide AI tools to generate specific outputs. This process demands that developers understand the limitations and strengths of the AI model they are working with, and that they know how to communicate their needs in a way that elicits the best possible response.
Prompt engineering isn’t about asking AI to “generate code” in a broad sense. Instead, it involves refining and iterating on requests to generate solutions that are contextually appropriate and relevant to the specific project at hand. A poorly phrased prompt can lead to inefficient, incomplete, or even erroneous code. Thus, developers must constantly refine their approach, adjusting prompts to maximize the quality of the AI’s output. This process requires not only deep understanding of the task but also a continuous learning loop between the developer and the tool.
For instance, in natural language processing (NLP) tasks, even a small difference in wording can lead to vastly different outcomes. A simple prompt like “Write a function to sort numbers” might generate a working code snippet, but it could be slow or not optimized for large datasets. A more specific prompt like “Write an efficient algorithm in Python to sort numbers in a large dataset using the merge sort technique” will provide a far better result. The difference lies in the prompt’s precision, showcasing how fine-tuning instructions is crucial to obtaining the right solution.
Moreover, as AI tools become more sophisticated, prompt engineering will continue to evolve. Developers will need to not only understand how to craft inputs that guide the model to generate specific results but also how to adjust and tweak prompts dynamically as the model’s output is tested and refined. This iterative process ensures that the final code is optimized, secure, and functional.
2. Understanding AI Limitations: AI is a Tool, Not a Silver Bullet
Even the most sophisticated AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4 or Google’s BERT, are not perfect. These models can generate impressive code, but they do not fully comprehend the intricacies of the problem at hand. They lack deep contextual understanding and may overlook edge cases or fail to adhere to the most recent best practices in software development. AI tools may suggest code snippets, but they cannot guarantee that the code will be efficient, secure, or well-structured in the way that a skilled developer would design it.
This limitation makes it imperative for human developers to remain fully engaged in the development process. AI is excellent at suggesting solutions, but it cannot replace the human touch required for nuanced decision-making and problem-solving. The developer’s role in reviewing, debugging, and refining AI-generated code is crucial, ensuring that the final product meets the project’s specifications, adheres to best practices, and functions securely and optimally.
A concrete example of this limitation is found in the area of security. While AI can generate code that appears to work, it may inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities. A function that looks perfectly fine may fail to account for edge cases like SQL injection or improper error handling, leading to security risks. Developers must thoroughly audit AI-generated code to ensure that these vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated.
Furthermore, AI tools have no awareness of a project’s broader context. For example, when developing a machine learning model, AI-generated code might miss some critical environmental considerations such as memory usage, compute time, or integration with other systems. These factors are crucial in the real-world application of AI systems and must be managed by skilled developers who understand both the technical and contextual requirements of the system.
3. Validation and Testing: Ensuring Code Quality
One of the most time-consuming and critical aspects of software development is testing. AI tools may generate code at remarkable speed, but the responsibility for testing that code falls squarely on the shoulders of human developers. It is essential to test AI-generated code in a variety of scenarios, ensuring that it performs as expected and does not introduce bugs, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies.
Testing is especially crucial in AI development, where the stakes are high. AI systems can influence critical areas such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous driving, where failure can have serious consequences. Therefore, thorough validation is paramount. Developers must write unit tests, conduct integration tests, and perform manual code reviews to ensure that the AI-generated code meets all functional and security requirements.
For instance, consider a situation where AI is used to develop an autonomous vehicle’s decision-making software. Even if the code generated by the AI appears flawless, a single failure could result in catastrophic consequences. Therefore, the testing phase must involve exhaustive scenario simulations, hardware integration tests, and edge case analysis to ensure that the software behaves as expected in all circumstances. The reliance on AI tools does not eliminate the need for these detailed, manual testing procedures.
Ng Reports Feeling “Frankly Exhausted” After a Day of AI Coding
A telling personal anecdote from Andrew Ng provides a vivid illustration of the intellectual effort required for AI-assisted development. In a recent Business Insider interview, Ng admitted that after a day of coding with AI, he often feels “frankly exhausted.” This is a far cry from the image of coding as an effortless, low-effort task that the term “vibe coding” might suggest.
Ng’s comment highlights the mental and emotional energy required when working with AI tools. While AI can certainly increase productivity by automating certain tasks, the cognitive load required to properly use these tools remains high. Developers are not just inputting commands and sitting back to relax—they are deeply involved in the development process, iterating on outputs, testing different scenarios, and ensuring that the code integrates seamlessly with other systems.
In fact, the process of working with AI introduces new levels of complexity that, rather than reducing the effort involved, actually amplify the mental demands on the developer. The automation of certain aspects of coding, such as generating boilerplate code or suggesting algorithms, might give the illusion of simplicity. However, the reality is that developers must manage and validate the output, adjust parameters, and handle edge cases—all while continuously ensuring that the AI-generated solution aligns with the project’s broader goals.
This highlights why AI-assisted coding is not a passive activity but an active, intellectually engaging one. It requires developers to have not only a strong technical background but also the ability to critically assess AI output, adapt solutions, and address potential failures. The cognitive and emotional strain involved underscores the demanding nature of AI-assisted development.
Why AI-Generated Code Can Be Exhausting to Work With
The exhaustion Ng experiences after a day of AI-assisted coding can be attributed to several factors, which contribute to the complexity of this kind of work:
- Complexity of Prompt Engineering: As discussed earlier, prompt engineering is a nuanced skill that requires significant attention to detail. Developers are constantly adjusting their prompts to guide AI tools toward generating optimal code. This constant iteration demands focus and patience, leading to mental fatigue.
- Continuous Validation and Refinement: Even when AI generates seemingly functional code, developers must spend considerable time validating and refining the output. This involves thorough testing to ensure the code works across various scenarios and integrates seamlessly with the existing system. The time spent debugging and validating can be mentally taxing, as it requires a constant back-and-forth between the developer and the AI system.
- Anticipating Edge Cases: AI tools are not infallible and can overlook edge cases or unique situations. Developers must anticipate these cases, write additional test cases, and refine the AI-generated code to cover these gaps. Identifying and managing edge cases often require deep knowledge of the system, problem domain, and user behavior, all of which add complexity to the process.
- AI’s Lack of Context: AI models can generate code, but they do not fully understand the project context or the broader objectives of the development task. Developers must constantly correct the AI’s output to ensure it aligns with the project’s specific goals, framework, or guidelines. This oversight demands that developers remain engaged and assert control over the direction of the project.
- Iterative Nature of AI-Generated Solutions: Working with AI is rarely a one-shot process. Developers need to iterate, improve, and adjust the solutions provided by the AI. This iterative process, which might seem like a faster path to a solution, actually requires constant feedback loops, mental flexibility, and problem-solving. This constant re-engagement with the AI is mentally demanding.
These factors, combined with the fact that AI coding still requires a developer’s critical insight to ensure quality, contribute significantly to the exhaustion Ng mentions. The reality is that AI coding is not about letting the machine do all the work but engaging with the machine to enhance productivity while maintaining quality control, security, and functionality.
Ng’s admission should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes that AI tools allow for an “easy” day of work. In reality, AI-assisted development is still a rigorous intellectual exercise that demands focus, attention to detail, and critical thinking. The exhaustion that Ng feels after a day of coding underscores the demanding nature of the work and should dispel the myth of AI-assisted coding as a shortcut to success.
AI Development Is Becoming More Complex, Not Less
The exhaustion Ng reports could also indicate the growing complexity that AI tools bring into development. AI-assisted development has often been framed as a way to make coding “easier” by automating repetitive tasks, but this automation is only one part of the equation. As AI tools become more advanced, they come with their own set of challenges that developers must navigate, and these challenges can increase the cognitive load, rather than reduce it.
For example, AI tools may generate functional code, but the developer must still address concerns related to scalability, efficiency, and integration. While AI can help generate solutions faster, it also requires developers to engage with the output more rigorously, ensuring that the code fits within the larger architectural framework. Additionally, developers may have to spend additional time fine-tuning parameters and ensuring that the AI-generated solution adheres to security best practices, such as preventing vulnerabilities or safeguarding against data leaks.
In other words, AI coding isn’t just about “getting things done faster”—it’s about managing an extra layer of complexity that demands attention, focus, and oversight. Rather than reducing the burden of software development, AI-assisted tools often introduce a new set of responsibilities for the developer, making the development process even more mentally taxing.
Why AI Isn’t a Substitute for Human Expertise
Another important takeaway from Ng’s exhaustion is the reminder that AI tools should be seen as valuable assistants, not replacements for human expertise. While AI may be able to generate useful code snippets or suggest ways to optimize certain processes, it cannot replace the intuition, creativity, and problem-solving capabilities of experienced developers.
AI lacks the contextual understanding that a skilled developer brings to the table. For example, when faced with a challenging problem, developers often leverage their experience to identify potential solutions, anticipate issues, and make judgment calls that are informed by the unique requirements of the project. These are areas where AI, despite its impressive capabilities, still falls short. As Ng suggests, the intellectual work that goes into using AI tools effectively requires constant engagement and oversight from developers, who must apply their expertise to steer the development process.
The idea that AI will somehow “do all the work” in software development is misleading. The reality is that AI provides a helpful framework to expedite certain tasks, but it is still the developer who must bring their technical knowledge and expertise to ensure that the final product meets the desired standards.
AI-Assisted Development as a Multi-Layered Process
Rather than simplifying development, AI-assisted coding often adds complexity in multiple layers. Developers must:
- Guide the AI: Developers must carefully input detailed prompts and commands, ensuring that the AI understands the context and generates accurate results.
- Validate Output: AI-generated code must undergo thorough testing, ensuring that it functions properly within the specific use case.
- Iterate: The output must be refined continuously as developers identify issues and make adjustments based on feedback from testing and real-world use.
- Ensure Scalability and Efficiency: Developers must ensure that AI-generated code is scalable and optimized for performance in various environments.
- Security Auditing: Ensuring that AI-generated code follows security best practices is a crucial step that requires constant vigilance from the developer.
This multi-layered approach to AI development adds a layer of complexity that isn’t often considered when discussing AI-assisted tools. As AI continues to evolve, the demands placed on developers to manage and optimize the output only increase, leading to a higher cognitive load and mental exhaustion. In this light, it’s easy to see why Ng feels exhausted at the end of a day’s work. Rather than reducing the burden, AI coding tools require deeper engagement and a higher level of expertise.
Misleading Branding Risks Promoting Blind Acceptance and Lack of Testing
The rise of AI-powered coding tools has been accompanied by a surge in marketing that promotes these tools as quick, easy solutions to development challenges. Terms like “no-code,” “automated coding,” and “instant code generation” can create a misleading impression of AI-assisted development as being nearly effortless. This kind of branding, while attractive, can be dangerous. It risks promoting a culture of blind acceptance, where developers, especially those new to the field, might rely too heavily on AI-generated code without properly testing or validating it.
The ease with which AI can generate code may give rise to the illusion that less effort is required to build a fully functioning system. However, this is far from the truth. Code, whether written by a human or generated by AI, requires thorough testing, debugging, and integration. AI is not immune to errors or oversights, and developers must actively engage with the process to ensure the code performs as intended.
In this context, Ng’s critique becomes crucial. By warning against the rise of “vibe coding,” he calls on developers and organizations to approach AI tools with caution, ensuring that enthusiasm for new technologies does not cloud their judgment. Just because AI makes certain tasks easier does not mean that AI tools can replace the thorough and disciplined work that defines high-quality software development.
A Vital Message for Teams to Balance Enthusiasm for AI Tools with Disciplined Software Practices
Andrew Ng’s comments about “vibe coding” offer an important lesson for the AI community: while AI tools have revolutionized the way we approach coding, they should not be seen as shortcuts or a way to reduce the effort required for software development. AI tools, especially in the realm of AI-assisted development, are powerful augmentations of human capabilities, not replacements for human insight, judgment, and expertise.
As organizations and developers integrate AI tools into their workflows, they must remain vigilant about the need for focused, rigorous software development practices. The excitement surrounding AI and its potential should not overshadow the fundamentals of software engineering, which require careful testing, debugging, validation, and continuous improvement. AI tools may speed up certain tasks, but they cannot replace the intellectual effort, problem-solving skills, and attention to detail that define great software development.
Ng’s critique is a call to action for developers and teams: AI tools can make you more efficient, but they will never eliminate the need for hard work, focus, and discipline in the development process. The future of AI development depends on a balanced approach—one where AI augments human capabilities but never replaces the critical thinking that lies at the heart of great software engineering.
Works Cited
AI. (2025, June 20). Vibe-Based Coding Empowers Neurodivergent Devs. AI Competence. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://aicompetence.org/vibe-based-coding-empowers-neurodivergent-devs/] * Note: This article directly quotes Andrew Ng’s “frankly exhausted” comment and discusses his views within the broader context of vibe coding.
Frank’s World of Data Science & AI. (2025, June 12). Every Essential AI Skill in 25 Minutes (2025). Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://www.franksworld.com/2025/06/12/every-essential-ai-skill-in-25-minutes-2025/] * Note: This article references the “vibe coding” discussion and Andrew Ng’s general stance on the need for continued coding skills.
Klover.ai. (2025, June 11). Vibe Coding – AI-Assisted Software Development. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://www.klover.ai/vibe-coding-ai-assisted-software-development/] * Note: This article specifically references “Andrew Ng Pushes Back on AI ‘Vibe Coding,’ Calling It Hard Work, Not Hype” and provides a detailed discussion of the concept.
Klover.ai. (2025, June 9). Beyond the Vibes: Mastering AI-Assisted Coding in the New Era of Software Development. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://www.klover.ai/beyong-the-vibes-mastering-ai-assisted-coding-new-era-software-development/] * Note: This article explicitly discusses Ng’s challenge to the “vibe coding” narrative and his emphasis on the intellectual demands.
Perplexity. (n.d.). Andrew Ng calls “vibe coding” an unfortunate term for deep intellectual exercise. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://www.perplexity.ai/page/andrew-ng-calls-vibe-coding-an-Sg_5eUFKSASP5kPByGD8tg] * Note: This is a direct report summarizing Ng’s statements at LangChain Interrupt and his Business Insider interview, including the “frankly exhausted” quote.
Slashdot. (2025, June 5). Andrew Ng Says Vibe Coding is a Bad Name For a Very Real and Exhausting Job. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://developers.slashdot.org/story/25/06/05/165258/andrew-ng-says-vibe-coding-is-a-bad-name-for-a-very-real-and-exhausting-job] * Note: This news aggregator explicitly reports on Ng’s comments at LangChain Interrupt and his “frankly exhausted” statement from the Business Insider interview.
Synergy Labs. (2025, April 28). What is Vibe Coding? Your 2025 Vibe Coding Guide. Retrieved from [Insert full URL here, if you were publishing this, e.g., https://www.synergylabs.co/blog/what-is-vibe-coding-your-2025-vibe-coding-guide] * Note: This article mentions “Andrew Ng’s Vibe Coding 101 course,” indicating his broader engagement with the topic, even if the “course” itself isn’t a direct quote.
Klover.ai. “AI Productivity & Laziness: Ng on Empowering Developers.” Klover.ai, https://www.klover.ai/ai-productivity-laziness-ng-on-empowering-developers/.
Klover.ai. “Cut the Hype: Andrew Ng’s Reality on AI’s Real Business ROI.” Klover.ai, https://www.klover.ai/cut-the-hype-andrew-ngs-reality-on-ais-real-business-roi/.
Klover.ai. “Andrew Ng.” Klover.ai, https://www.klover.ai/andrew-ng/.
