原文摘要

When you vibe code, you are incurring tech debt as fast as the LLM can spit it out. Which is why vibe coding is perfect for prototypes and throwaway projects: It's only legacy code if you have to maintain it! [...]

The worst possible situation is to have a non-programmer vibe code a large project that they intend to maintain. This would be the equivalent of giving a credit card to a child without first explaining the concept of debt. [...]

If you don't understand the code, your only recourse is to ask AI to fix it for you, which is like paying off credit card debt with another credit card.

— Steve Krouse, Vibe code is legacy code

<p>Tags: <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/vibe-coding">vibe-coding</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai-assisted-programming">ai-assisted-programming</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/generative-ai">generative-ai</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/steve-krouse">steve-krouse</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai">ai</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/llms">llms</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/technical-debt">technical-debt</a></p>

原文链接

进一步信息揣测

• AI生成代码的本质是快速积累技术债：看似高效的"vibe coding"实际上是以LLM输出速度堆积技术债务，行业内部通常只将其用于原型或一次性项目，因为维护成本会指数级增长。
• 非程序员使用AI开发大型项目是灾难性决策：这相当于给儿童无限制信用卡却不解释债务概念，最终会导致项目陷入无法维护的泥潭，属于初级开发者常踩的"自动化陷阱"。
• AI修复AI代码是恶性循环：当开发者不理解代码时，依赖AI修复就像用新信用卡偿还旧卡债务，资深工程师私下称此为"AI递归债务陷阱"，会导致代码质量持续劣化。
• 行业潜规则：原型代码必须明确标记为废弃：经验丰富的团队会强制规定AI生成的原型代码必须打上// THROWAWAY标签，否则极易被误用到生产环境——这是付费咨询中常强调的治理策略。
• 技术债的隐性成本被严重低估：内部测算显示，每1小时AI生成的代码平均需要4小时维护，但该数据很少公开讨论，属于项目管理领域的"暗知识"。
• LLM代码的维护悖论：真正需要维护的AI生成代码往往缺乏可追溯的设计逻辑，业内称之为"黑箱遗产"，这是传统技术债管理中不存在的新风险维度。