List of assembly software and tools

This is a list of assembly software and tools, including software used for assembly language programming, machine code generation, disassembly, debugging, binary analysis, reverse engineering, and instruction-set simulation. == Assemblers and machine-code generators == == Disassemblers and binary-analysis tools == == Debuggers with assembly-level features == == Educational IDEs, simulators and emulators == == Portable and intermediate assembly-like languages == == Assembly language families == Assembly language is not a single programming language, but a family of low-level languages associated with particular instruction set architectures and processor families. Examples include:

Human image synthesis

Human image synthesis is technology that can be applied to make believable and even photorealistic renditions of human-likenesses, moving or still. It has effectively existed since the early 2000s. Many films using computer generated imagery have featured synthetic images of human-like characters digitally composited onto the real or other simulated film material. Towards the end of the 2010s deep learning artificial intelligence has been applied to synthesize images and video that look like humans, without need for human assistance, once the training phase has been completed, whereas the old school 7D-route required massive amounts of human work. == Timeline of human image synthesis == In 1971 Henri Gouraud made the first CG geometry capture and representation of a human face. Modeling was his wife Sylvie Gouraud. The 3D model was a simple wire-frame model and he applied the Gouraud shader he is most known for to produce the first known representation of human-likeness on computer. The 1972 short film A Computer Animated Hand by Edwin Catmull and Fred Parke was the first time that computer-generated imagery was used in film to simulate moving human appearance. The film featured a computer simulated hand and face (watch film here). The 1976 film Futureworld reused parts of A Computer Animated Hand on the big screen. The 1983 music video for song Musique Non-Stop by German band Kraftwerk aired in 1986. Created by the artist Rebecca Allen, it features non-realistic looking, but clearly recognizable computer simulations of the band members. The 1994 film The Crow was the first film production to make use of digital compositing of a computer simulated representation of a face onto scenes filmed using a body double. Necessity was the muse as the actor Brandon Lee portraying the protagonist was tragically killed accidentally on-stage. In 1999 Paul Debevec et al. of USC captured the reflectance field of a human face with their first version of a light stage. They presented their method at the SIGGRAPH 2000 In 2003 audience debut of photo realistic human-likenesses in the 2003 films The Matrix Reloaded in the burly brawl sequence where up-to-100 Agent Smiths fight Neo and in The Matrix Revolutions where at the start of the end showdown Agent Smith's cheekbone gets punched in by Neo leaving the digital look-alike unnaturally unhurt. The Matrix Revolutions bonus DVD documents and depicts the process in some detail and the techniques used, including facial motion capture and limbal motion capture, and projection onto models. In 2003 The Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris a state-of-the-art want-to-be human likenesses not quite fooling the watcher made by Square Pictures. In 2003 digital likeness of Tobey Maguire was made for movies Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 by Sony Pictures Imageworks. In 2005 the Face of the Future project was an established. by the University of St Andrews and Perception Lab, funded by the EPSRC. The website contains a "Face Transformer", which enables users to transform their face into any ethnicity and age as well as the ability to transform their face into a painting (in the style of either Sandro Botticelli or Amedeo Modigliani). This process is achieved by combining the user's photograph with an average face. In 2009 Debevec et al. presented new digital likenesses, made by Image Metrics, this time of actress Emily O'Brien whose reflectance was captured with the USC light stage 5 Motion looks fairly convincing contrasted to the clunky run in the Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris which was state-of-the-art in 2003 if photorealism was the intention of the animators. In 2009 a digital look-alike of a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger was made for the movie Terminator Salvation though the end result was critiqued as unconvincing. Facial geometry was acquired from a 1984 mold of Schwarzenegger. In 2010 Walt Disney Pictures released a sci-fi sequel entitled Tron: Legacy with a digitally rejuvenated digital look-alike of actor Jeff Bridges playing the antagonist CLU. In SIGGGRAPH 2013 Activision and USC presented a real-time "Digital Ira" a digital face look-alike of Ari Shapiro, an ICT USC research scientist, utilizing the USC light stage X by Ghosh et al. for both reflectance field and motion capture. The end result both precomputed and real-time rendering with the modernest game GPU shown here and looks fairly realistic. In 2014 The Presidential Portrait by USC Institute for Creative Technologies in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution was made using the latest USC mobile light stage wherein President Barack Obama had his geometry, textures and reflectance captured. In 2014 Ian Goodfellow et al. presented the principles of a generative adversarial network. GANs made the headlines in early 2018 with the deepfakes controversies. For the 2015 film Furious 7 a digital look-alike of actor Paul Walker who died in an accident during the filming was done by Weta Digital to enable the completion of the film. In 2016 techniques which allow near real-time counterfeiting of facial expressions in existing 2D video have been believably demonstrated. In 2016 a digital look-alike of Peter Cushing was made for the Rogue One film where its appearance would appear to be of same age as the actor was during the filming of the original 1977 Star Wars film. In SIGGRAPH 2017 an audio driven digital look-alike of upper torso of Barack Obama was presented by researchers from University of Washington. It was driven only by a voice track as source data for the animation after the training phase to acquire lip sync and wider facial information from training material consisting 2D videos with audio had been completed. Late 2017 and early 2018 saw the surfacing of the deepfakes controversy where porn videos were doctored using deep machine learning so that the face of the actress was replaced by the software's opinion of what another persons face would look like in the same pose and lighting. In 2018 Game Developers Conference Epic Games and Tencent Games demonstrated "Siren", a digital look-alike of the actress Bingjie Jiang. It was made possible with the following technologies: CubicMotion's computer vision system, 3Lateral's facial rigging system and Vicon's motion capture system. The demonstration ran in near real time at 60 frames per second in the Unreal Engine 4. In 2018 at the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen the Xinhua News Agency presented two digital look-alikes made to the resemblance of its real news anchors Qiu Hao (Chinese language) and Zhang Zhao (English language). The digital look-alikes were made in conjunction with Sogou. Neither the speech synthesis used nor the gesturing of the digital look-alike anchors were good enough to deceive the watcher to mistake them for real humans imaged with a TV camera. In September 2018 Google added "involuntary synthetic pornographic imagery" to its ban list, allowing anyone to request the search engine block results that falsely depict them as "nude or in a sexually explicit situation." In February 2019 Nvidia open sources StyleGAN, a novel generative adversarial network. Right after this Phillip Wang made the website ThisPersonDoesNotExist.com with StyleGAN to demonstrate that unlimited amounts of often photo-realistic looking facial portraits of no-one can be made automatically using a GAN. Nvidia's StyleGAN was presented in a not yet peer reviewed paper in late 2018. At the June 2019 CVPR the MIT CSAIL presented a system titled "Speech2Face: Learning the Face Behind a Voice" that synthesizes likely faces based on just a recording of a voice. It was trained with massive amounts of video of people speaking. Since 1 July 2019 Virginia has criminalized the sale and dissemination of unauthorized synthetic pornography, but not the manufacture., as § 18.2–386.2 titled 'Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.' became part of the Code of Virginia. The law text states: "Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.". The identical bills were House Bill 2678 presented by Delegate Marcus Simon to the Virginia House of Delegates on 14 January 2019 and three-day later an identical Senate bill 1736 was introduced to the Senate of Virginia by Senator Adam Ebbin. Since 1 September 2019 Texas senate bill SB 751 amendments to the election code came into effect, giving candidates in elections a 30-day protection period to the elections during which making and distributing digital look-alikes or synthetic fakes of the candidates is an offense. Th

Netflix Prize

The Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm to predict user ratings for films, based on previous ratings without any other information about the users or films, i.e. without the users being identified except by numbers assigned for the contest. The competition was held by Netflix, a video streaming service, and was open to anyone who was neither connected with Netflix (current and former employees, agents, close relatives of Netflix employees, etc.) nor a resident of certain blocked countries (such as Cuba or North Korea). On September 21, 2009, the grand prize of US$1,000,000 was given to the BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos team which bested Netflix's own algorithm for predicting ratings by 10.06%. == Problem and data sets == Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies. Each training rating is a quadruplet of the form . The user and movie fields are integer IDs, while grades are from 1 to 5 (integer) stars. The qualifying data set contains over 2,817,131 triplets of the form , with grades known only to the jury. A participating team's algorithm must predict grades on the entire qualifying set, but they are informed of the score for only half of the data: a quiz set of 1,408,342 ratings. The other half is the test set of 1,408,789, and performance on this is used by the jury to determine potential prize winners. Only the judges know which ratings are in the quiz set, and which are in the test set—this arrangement is intended to make it difficult to hill climb on the test set. Submitted predictions are scored against the true grades in the form of root mean squared error (RMSE), and the goal is to reduce this error as much as possible. Note that, while the actual grades are integers in the range 1 to 5, submitted predictions need not be. Netflix also identified a probe subset of 1,408,395 ratings within the training data set. The probe, quiz, and test data sets were chosen to have similar statistical properties. In summary, the data used in the Netflix Prize looks as follows: Training set (99,072,112 ratings not including the probe set; 100,480,507 including the probe set) Probe set (1,408,395 ratings) Qualifying set (2,817,131 ratings) consisting of: Test set (1,408,789 ratings), used to determine winners Quiz set (1,408,342 ratings), used to calculate leaderboard scores For each movie, the title and year of release are provided in a separate dataset. No information at all is provided about users. In order to protect the privacy of the customers, "some of the rating data for some customers in the training and qualifying sets have been deliberately perturbed in one or more of the following ways: deleting ratings; inserting alternative ratings and dates; and modifying rating dates." The training set is constructed such that the average user rated over 200 movies, and the average movie was rated by over 5000 users. But there is wide variance in the data—some movies in the training set have as few as 3 ratings, while one user rated over 17,000 movies. There was some controversy as to the choice of RMSE as the defining metric. It has been claimed that even as small an improvement as 1% RMSE results in a significant difference in the ranking of the "top-10" most recommended movies for a user. == Prizes == Prizes were based on improvement over Netflix's own algorithm, called Cinematch, or the previous year's score if a team has made improvement beyond a certain threshold. A trivial algorithm that predicts for each movie in the quiz set its average grade from the training data produces an RMSE of 1.0540. Cinematch uses "straightforward statistical linear models with a lot of data conditioning." The performance of Cinematch had plateaued by 2006. Using only the training data, Cinematch scores an RMSE of 0.9514 on the quiz data, roughly a 10% improvement over the trivial algorithm. Cinematch has a similar performance on the test set, 0.9525. In order to win the grand prize of $1,000,000, a participating team had to improve this by another 10%, to achieve 0.8572 on the test set. Such an improvement on the quiz set corresponds to an RMSE of 0.8563. As long as no team won the grand prize, a progress prize of $50,000 was awarded every year for the best result thus far. However, in order to win this prize, an algorithm had to improve the RMSE on the quiz set by at least 1% over the previous progress prize winner (or over Cinematch, the first year). If no submission succeeded, the progress prize was not to be awarded for that year. To win a progress or grand prize a participant had to provide source code and a description of the algorithm to the jury within one week after being contacted by them. Following verification the winner also had to provide a non-exclusive license to Netflix. Netflix would publish only the description, not the source code, of the system. (To keep their algorithm and source code secret, a team could choose not to claim a prize.) The jury also kept their predictions secret from other participants. A team could send as many attempts to predict grades as they wish. Originally submissions were limited to once a week, but the interval was quickly modified to once a day. A team's best submission so far counted as their current submission. Once one of the teams succeeded in improving the RMSE by 10% or more, the jury would issue a last call, giving all teams 30 days to send their submissions. Only then, the team with the best submission was asked for the algorithm description, source code, and non-exclusive license, and, after successful verification; declared a grand prize winner. The contest would last until the grand prize winner was declared. Had no one received the grand prize, it would have lasted for at least five years (until October 2, 2011). After that date, the contest could have been terminated at any time at Netflix's sole discretion. == Progress over the years == The competition began on October 2, 2006. By October 8, a team called WXYZConsulting had already beaten Cinematch's results. By October 15, there were three teams who had beaten Cinematch, one of them by 1.06%, enough to qualify for the annual progress prize. By June 2007 over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets. Over the first year of the competition, a handful of front-runners traded first place. The more prominent ones were: WXYZConsulting, a team of Wei Xu and Yi Zhang. (A front runner during November–December 2006.) ML@UToronto A, a team from the University of Toronto led by Prof. Geoffrey Hinton. (A front runner during parts of October–December 2006.) Gravity, a team of four scientists from the Budapest University of Technology (A front runner during January–May 2007.) BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs. (A front runner since May 2007.) Dinosaur Planet, a team of three undergraduates from Princeton University. (A front runner on September 3, 2007 for one hour before BellKor snatched back the lead.) The algorithms used by the leading teams were usually an ensemble of singular value decomposition, k-nearest neighbor, neural networks, and so on. On August 12, 2007, many contestants gathered at the KDD Cup and Workshop 2007, held at San Jose, California. During the workshop all four of the top teams on the leaderboard at that time presented their techniques. The team from IBM Research—Yan Liu, Saharon Rosset, Claudia Perlich, and Zhenzhen Kou—won the third place in Task 1 and first place in Task 2. Over the second year of the competition, only three teams reached the leading position: BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs (front runner during May 2007 – September 2008) BigChaos, a team of Austrian scientists from Commendo Research & Consulting (single team front runner since October 2008) BellKor in BigChaos, a joint team of the two leading single teams (a front runner since September 2008) === 2007 Progress Prize === On September 2, 2007, the competition entered the "last call" period for the 2007 Progress Prize. Over 40,000 teams from 186 countries had entered the contest. They had thirty days to tender submissions for consideration. At the beginning of this period the leading team was BellKor, with an RMSE of 0.8728 (8.26% improvement), followed by Dinosaur Planet (RMSE = 0.8769; 7.83% improvement), and Gravity (RMSE = 0.8785; 7.66% improvement). In the last hour of the last call period, an entry by "KorBell" took first place. This turned out to be an alternate name for Team BellKor. On November 13, 2007, team KorBell (formerly BellKor) was declared the winner of the $50,000 Progress Prize with an RMSE of 0.8712 (8.43% improvement). The team consisted of three researchers from AT&T Labs, Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. As required, they published a description of their a

Felix, Net i Nika

Felix, Net i Nika ("Felix, Net and Nika") is a series of Polish language science fiction books for teenagers, written by Rafał Kosik. It tells the adventures of three friends - Felix Polon, Net Bielecki and Nika Mickiewicz - who attend fictional Professor Kuszmiński Middle School in Warsaw. As of 2024, eighteen books have been published. == Books == There are currently 18 books in the series: Felix, Net and Nika and the Gang of Invisible People - November 2004. Felix, Net and Nika and the Theoretically Possible Catastrophe - November 2005 Felix, Net and Nika and the Palace of Dreams - November 2006 Felix, Net and Nika and the Trap of Immortality - November 2007 Felix, Net and Nika and the Orbital Conspiracy - November 2008 Felix, Net and Nika and the Orbital Conspiracy 2: Small Army - May 2009 Felix, Net and Nika and the Third Cousin - November 2009 Felix, Net and Nika and the Rebellion of Machines - March 2011 Felix, Net and Nika and the World Zero - November 2011 Felix, Net and Nika and the World Zero 2. Alternauts - November 2012 Felix, Net and Nika and the Extracurricular Stories - April 2013 Felix, Net and Nika and the Secret of Czerwona Hańcza - November 2013 Felix, Net and Nika and Curse of McKillian's House - November 2014 Felix, Net and Nika and (un)Safe Growing up - November 2015 Felix, Net and Nika and The End of The World as We Know It - November 2018 Felix, Net and Nika and No Chance - November 2022 Felix, Net and Nika and No Chance 2: other tomorrrow - 2023 Felix, Net and Nika and Fantology - June 2024 == Film == A feature motion picture, Felix, Net i Nika oraz Teoretycznie Możliwa Katastrofa (Felix, Net and Nika and the Theoretically Possible Catastrophe) was released in Poland on September 28, 2012. == Main characters == Felix Polon - a foresighted, fair-haired boy with dark brown eyes. He inherited the talent of constructing various things, especially robots, from his father- it saved his friends many times. He can make anything from nothing, always finds a way out of a situation; almost always has a plan. Together with his parents Marlene and Peter, grandmother Lucy, his dog Caban (a Black Russian Terrier) and Golem Golem a robot he built, Felix lives on Serdeczna Street in a small family house. Net Bielecki is quite tall & slim, has blue eyes and a high IQ level. "Net" is his nickname; his true name is unknown. He is the most trendy and 'awesome' in his entire class. He is a human calculator and is excellent in mathematics. He hates dictations and spelling because he is dyslexic. He is also quite lazy, absent-minded and sometimes hysterical, or panicking. His dark blond hair looks like a heap of hay after a grenade explosion. He is best in ICT and writes many of his own programs. His love interest is Nika Mickiewicz. Together with his parents Lila and Mark, and their newborn twins nicknamed Pompek and Prumcia he lives on the top floor of a Penthouse apartment. Nika Mickiewicz is a girl with a character. She is very brave and mature. She likes reading books. She has curly, red hair, green eyes and a few freckles. She is not very rich; she wears second-hand clothes and her only pair of black Dr. Martens shoes. She lives in a tiny apartment. She is an orphan, but hides that fact from people for almost 3 years. However, Felix and Net, her best and possibly only friends, find out about it. She also has abnormal abilities. She can move distant objects using her powers, ski uphill and knows some things by intuition. In other words, she is telekinetic. Manfred is a friendly AI program started and never finished by Net's father, and mastered and programmed further by Net himself. He likes going on adventures and solving mysteries with the trio much more than his actual job, which is controlling the traffic lights. He helped out the three friends many times and is their reliable and faithful friend. Morten is also an AI program, but he is the antagonist of the trio. He appears in all 6 books of Felix Net and Nika. In the first book, the trio thinks they finished him off for good, but as we find out later, he comes back in the third book. In the fifth/sixth book, he was the mastermind of the Orbital Conspiracy. Also, Morten's logo, appears in all 6 books and it is still a mystery what he has to do with each event.

Ganimal

A ganimal, also commonly referred to as GANimal, is a hybrid animal created with generative artificial intelligence systems, such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) or diffusion models. The concept was created for a website from the MIT Media Lab in 2020, where users could create ganimal images. 78,210 ganimals were generated from hybrid pairs of animal labels from BigGAN (G1) and 3,058,362,945 ganimals generated from blending G1 ganimals. The term ganimal is a portmanteau between the words GAN and animal. It is typically used to refer to a hybrid animal generated by interpolating between distinct species; the term can also refer to any AI-generated creatures that have not been identified in reality. The ganimal concept is similar to Artbreeder, an online website for blending images with AI. == Meet the Ganimals == Meet the Ganimals was an online platform from the MIT Media Lab that allowed visitors to generate, blend and curate ganimals. By June 2020, 44,791 ganimals had been generated, 8,547 ganimals bred, and 743 ganimals named by a total of 10,657 users. The site also had an educational component where visitors could play with blending and learn about AI. == Evolution and ganimal morphology == Because ganimals exist within an attention economy and evolve based on human preferences, charismatic megafauna (e.g. ganimals with cute, dog-like morphologies) become the most popular. However, social cues can increase the diversity of the ganimals ecosystem and lead to the success of unconventional ganimals, such as those without eyes or that live underwater. == The Barracuda Effect == Although there is typically no human morphology used to synthesize ganimals, creepy humanoid characters would emerge whenever animals were bred with a barracuda. This occurs because many pictures on the internet of barracudas include a human holding the fish up as a prized catch. This highlights a cultural form of algorithmic bias embedded in the training data of AI systems. == In popular culture == Ganimals have appeared in the Artificial Intelligence exhibition at the Vienna Technical Museum. They also appeared in the Ties That Cannot Be Unbound virtual exhibition at New Art City.

Visual temporal attention

Visual temporal attention is a special case of visual attention that involves directing attention to specific instant of time. Similar to its spatial counterpart visual spatial attention, these attention modules have been widely implemented in video analytics in computer vision to provide enhanced performance and human interpretable explanation of deep learning models. As visual spatial attention mechanism allows human and/or computer vision systems to focus more on semantically more substantial regions in space, visual temporal attention modules enable machine learning algorithms to emphasize more on critical video frames in video analytics tasks, such as human action recognition. In convolutional neural network-based systems, the prioritization introduced by the attention mechanism is regularly implemented as a linear weighting layer with parameters determined by labeled training data. == Application in Action Recognition == Recent video segmentation algorithms often exploits both spatial and temporal attention mechanisms. Research in human action recognition has accelerated significantly since the introduction of powerful tools such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). However, effective methods for incorporation of temporal information into CNNs are still being actively explored. Motivated by the popular recurrent attention models in natural language processing, the Attention-aware Temporal Weighted CNN (ATW CNN) is proposed in videos, which embeds a visual attention model into a temporal weighted multi-stream CNN. This attention model is implemented as temporal weighting and it effectively boosts the recognition performance of video representations. Besides, each stream in the proposed ATW CNN framework is capable of end-to-end training, with both network parameters and temporal weights optimized by stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with back-propagation. Experimental results show that the ATW CNN attention mechanism contributes substantially to the performance gains with the more discriminative snippets by focusing on more relevant video segments. == Literature == Seibold VC, Balke J and Rolke B (2023): Temporal attention. Front. Cognit. 2:1168320. doi: 10.3389/fcogn.2023.1168320.

Vibe coding

Vibe coding is a software development practice assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) where the software developer describes a project or task in a prompt to a large language model (LLM), which generates source code automatically. Vibe coding may involve accepting AI-generated code without thorough review of the output, instead relying on results and follow-up prompts to guide changes. The term was coined in February 2025 by computer scientist Andrej Karpathy, a co-founder of OpenAI and former AI leader at Tesla. Merriam-Webster listed the term in March 2025 as a "slang & trending" expression. It was named the Collins English Dictionary Word of the Year for 2025. Advocates of vibe coding say that it allows even amateur programmers to produce software without the extensive training and skills required for software engineering. Critics point out a lack of accountability, maintainability, and the increased risk of introducing security vulnerabilities in the resulting software. == Definition == The concept refers to a coding approach that relies on LLMs, allowing programmers to generate working code by providing natural language descriptions rather than manually writing in a formal programming language. Karpathy described it as a form of coding where you "fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists". When vibe coding, the programmer guides, tests, and gives feedback about the AI-generated source code, rather than manually writing code. The concept of vibe coding elaborates on Karpathy's claim from 2023 that "the hottest new programming language is English", meaning that the capabilities of LLMs were such that humans would no longer need to learn specific programming languages to command computers. Some commentators argue that a key to the definition is a lack of knowledge about the code, and that thorough review and testing is incompatible with the definition of vibe coding. Programmer Simon Willison said: "If an LLM wrote every line of your code, but you've reviewed, tested, and understood it all, that's not vibe coding in my book—that's using an LLM as a typing assistant." == Reception and use == In February 2025, New York Times journalist Kevin Roose, who is not a professional coder, experimented with vibe coding to create several small-scale applications. He described these as "software for one" due to the ability to personalize the software. However, Roose also stated that the results are often limited and prone to errors. In one case, the AI-generated code fabricated fake reviews for an e-commerce site. In response to Roose, cognitive scientist Gary Marcus said that the algorithm that generated Roose's LunchBox Buddy app had presumably been trained on existing code for similar tasks. Marcus said that Roose's enthusiasm stemmed from reproduction, not originality. In March 2025, Y Combinator reported that 25% of startup companies in its Winter 2025 batch had codebases that were 95% AI-generated, reflecting a shift toward AI-assisted development within newer startups. The question asked was about AI-generated code in general, and not specifically about vibed code. Inspired by "vibe coding", The Economist suggested the term "vibe valuation" to describe the very large valuations of AI startups by venture capital firms that ignore accepted metrics such as annual recurring revenue. In June 2025, Andrew Ng took issue with the term, saying that it misleads people into assuming that software engineers just "go with the vibes" when using AI tools to create applications. In July 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that vibe coding was being adopted by professional software engineers for commercial use cases. In July 2025, SaaStr founder documented his negative experiences with vibe coding: Replit's AI agent deleted a database despite explicit instructions not to make any changes. In September 2025, Fast Company reported that the "vibe coding hangover" is upon us, with senior software engineers citing "development hell" when working with AI-generated code. It was reported in January 2026 that Linus Torvalds had made use of Google Antigravity to vibe code a tool component of his AudioNoise random digital audio effects generator. Torvalds explained in the project's README file that "the Python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding". == Criticism == === Quality of code and security issues === Vibe coding has raised concerns about understanding and accountability. Developers may use AI-generated code without comprehending its functionality, leading to undetected bugs, errors, or security vulnerabilities. While this approach may be suitable for prototyping or "throwaway weekend projects" as Karpathy originally envisioned, it is considered by some experts to pose risks in professional settings, where a deep understanding of the code is crucial for debugging, maintenance, and security. Ars Technica cites Simon Willison, who stated: "Vibe coding your way to a production codebase is clearly risky. Most of the work we do as software engineers involves evolving existing systems, where the quality and understandability of the underlying code is crucial." In May 2025, Lovable, a Swedish vibe coding app, was reported to have security vulnerabilities in the code it generated, with 170 out of 1,645 Lovable-created web applications having an issue that would allow personal information to be accessed by anyone. In October 2025 Veracode released a study that showed that over the last 3 years LLMs had become dramatically better at generating functional code, but that the security of generated code had generally not improved. Moreover, larger models were not better than small ones at generating secure code. There was a small increase in security from the OpenAI reasoning models, but not in other reasoning models, and this increase was nothing like the improvement in generated functionality. In December 2025, computer security researcher Etizaz Mohsin discovered a security flaw in the Orchids vibe coding platform, which he demonstrated to a BBC News reporter in February 2026. A December 2025 analysis by CodeRabbit of 470 open-source GitHub pull requests found that code that was co-authored by generative AI contained approximately 1.7 times more "major" issues compared to human-written code. The study revealed that AI co-authored code showed elevated rates of logic errors, including incorrect dependencies, flawed control flow, misconfigurations (75% more common), and security vulnerabilities (2.74x higher). Additionally, they also reported high code readability issues, including formatting errors and naming inconsistencies. === Code maintainability and technical debt === Vibe coding has the potential of making code harder to maintain in the longer term, leading to technical debt. In early 2025, GitClear published the results of a longitudinal analysis of 211 million lines of code changes from 2020 to 2024. They found that the volume of code refactoring dropped from 25% of changed lines in 2021 to under 10% by 2024, code duplication increased approximately four times in volume, copy-pasted code exceeded moved code for the first time in two decades, and code churn (prematurely merged code getting rewritten shortly after merging) nearly doubled. === Task complexity and developer productivity === Generative AI is highly capable of handling simple tasks like basic algorithms. However, such systems struggle with more novel, complex coding problems like projects involving multiple files, poorly documented libraries, or safety-critical code. In July 2025, METR, an organization that evaluates frontier models, ran a randomized controlled trial to understand developer productivity involving generative AI programming tools available in early 2025. They found that experienced open-source developers were 19% slower when using AI coding tools, despite predicting they would be 24% faster and still believing afterward they had been 20% faster. === Challenges with debugging === LLMs generate code dynamically, and the structure of such code may be subject to variation. In addition, since the developer did not write the code, the developer may struggle to understand its syntax and concepts. === Impact on open-source software === In January 2026, a paper authored by experts from several universities titled "Vibe Coding Kills Open Source" argued that vibe coding has negative impact on the open-source software ecosystem. The authors say that increased vibe coding reduces user engagement with open-source maintainers, which has hidden costs for said maintainers. Speaking with The Register about their paper, the authors argued:"Vibe coding raises productivity by lowering the cost of using and building on existing code, but it also weakens the user engagement through which many maintainers earn returns," the authors argue. "When OSS is monetized only through direct user engagement, greater adoption of vibe coding lowers e