Where Are the Vibecoded Photoshops?

Two years after claims that vibecoding could produce complex, non-trivial artifacts like Photoshops, no verified examples have emerged, prompting skepticism about the technology’s purported capabilities.

The debate originated from claims that vibecoding—an AI-based process—had lowered barriers to producing complex artifacts across various software, including Photoshop, Excel, and 3D modeling tools. Despite millions of people supposedly having access to these tools and the ability to prompt AI models, no concrete evidence of such artifacts has been publicly demonstrated or verified. Critics argue that the absence of verified vibecoded outputs suggests the technology does not fulfill its promised potential, and that claims are often based on rhetoric rather than actual results. The discussion emphasizes that the core issue is not about simple AI outputs but about complex, architecturally integrated artifacts that require significant decision-making, verification, and expertise—levels that AI has not yet demonstrated access to, despite claims.

Why It Matters

This matters because it exposes a disconnect between claims of AI capabilities and tangible evidence, affecting industry credibility, user expectations, and the discourse around AI’s true potential. The lack of verified complex outputs also influences trust and the future development of AI tools for professional and creative use.

Background

The discussion stems from ongoing claims that vibecoding has democratized access to complex artifact creation, with proponents asserting that the barrier to producing Photoshop-like or other sophisticated outputs has been eliminated. However, over two years, no verified examples have surfaced, leading critics to question whether the technology can truly produce such artifacts or if the claims are exaggerated rhetoric. The debate highlights a broader issue in AI discourse: the conflation of prompt-based outputs with meaningful, architecturally complex artifacts that require verification and expertise. This controversy mirrors earlier industry debates about AI’s actual capabilities versus perceived potential.

“Where is the vibecoded Photoshop? The vibecoded Excel? The vibecoded Maya? The vibecoded Blender? The vibecoded compiler that compiles itself?”

— Hacker News user

“The core issue is not about simple AI outputs but about complex, architecturally integrated artifacts that AI has not yet demonstrated access to, despite claims.”

— Critical industry observer

What Remains Unclear

It remains unclear whether vibecoding can or will produce complex artifacts like Photoshop images or 3D models in the future. The extent of current AI capabilities in this domain is disputed, and no verified examples have been publicly demonstrated to date.

What’s Next

Further scrutiny and verification are expected as industry and community members continue to seek concrete examples and test the claims. The debate may influence future development, standards, and transparency in AI artifact creation.

Key Questions

What exactly is vibecoding supposed to do?

Vibecoding is claimed to be an AI process capable of generating complex, architecturally integrated artifacts across various software, including images, models, and code, based on prompts.

Why haven’t any verified vibecoded Photoshops appeared yet?

Despite claims, no publicly verified examples have emerged, leading to skepticism about whether vibecoding can produce such complex outputs or if the claims are exaggerated rhetoric.

What does this debate mean for AI development?

It highlights the importance of evidence and verification in assessing AI capabilities, potentially affecting trust, funding, and the direction of future AI research and applications.

Could vibecoding still produce complex artifacts in the future?

It is possible, but current evidence does not support that such capabilities have been achieved or demonstrated publicly.