It's Not Skepticism
It's Situational Awareness
In the ever expanding vernacular around the "Artificial Intelligence" motif, I think it's worth coming up with a more precise language.
I came across Mike Kennedy's essay titled It's not vibe coding: Agentic engineering, which itself references Agentic Engineering by Addy Osmani.
I understand the desire to disambiguate between general "vibe coders"—prompt, accept, see if it runs, if not, repeat—and "agentic engineers"—orchestrators of autonomous workflows that produce tests, codes, fixes, while the engineer handles QA, review, and high-level decision-making.
The distinction is useful, I believe, because it provides an avenue for accountability.
With the "vibe coders," if something goes wrong, who's fault is it? Is it the tool operator, or the makers of the tool? (Hint: Since it's an app, nobody's going to take the blame.)
But with "agentic engineers," the user is claiming responsibility for their product.
There may be additional distinctions to be made within this framework, but I still think this is a path in the right direction.
While We're At It
But while we're at it, I want to make a couple of distinctions of my own.
In these discussions, we use shorthand terms in order to to get our points across. I do this too.
For example, I may use terms like booster or enthusiast when talking about a group of people who are sympathetic to these tools.
And in return, I may be grouped into a term like skeptic or detractor.
These terms, unfortunately, fail to capture much of the nuance behind any given position.
For example, I'm generally not making arguments about the functional efficacy of these tools.
When I refer to boosters or enthusiasts, I'm not generally speaking to the aspect of tool usage and productivity. (Though I may sometimes contradict that...)
Instead, I'm more broadly talking to the AI apologist—this might include a person who is able to argue that the utility of these tools completely offsets the costs.
In other words, there are numerous examples of the harms and risks introduced by this unregulated industry, as well as a soiled and shameful history behind the rise of this tech—that it seems dishonest not only to acknowledge these harms, but to address them in earnest against the wide adoption of any technology.
As a theoretical, let's imagine arguments for and against Eli Whitney's cotton gin.
Some might point to the technological achievement of the engine and the potential to increase cotton productivity and supply by 10x. They may argue this may reduce dependence on slave labor.
Others may clearly see historical precedent and perceive that the engine will instead increase the use of slaves and create an economy dependent on an agricultural slave-based economy.
I know that analogies are not perfect.
But my main point here is that a skeptic may not necessarily be skeptical about the capabilities of a particular system—although skeptics do reserve the right to question those efficiencies.
But as for me, skepticism doesn't quite capture that nuance.
It's about situational awareness.
The conditions that we're living in right now and that we are participating in are ripe for harm and exploitation.
It is, to me, unbelievably obvious.
My hope is that for the "agentic engineer", their usage of the tools does not blind them to the social responsibility we have toward each other.
Your adversary is not the skeptic.
Instead, think about who is ultimately out there to exploit you and the world around you, and then think about what can be done to stop them.