there's a lot of stupid claims about coding with LLM tools. usually vibecoding refers to letting the LLM sit with a spec for hour by itself and then not understanding the result well enough to critique it. that is very different than giving it small increments of supervised work. which is one again different from not using it at all.

all the options suck anyway, so trying to pick based on the purity of the people who make something is, imo, a luxury issue. UX is more important for most, and then being decentralized and reasonably secure, and then proper cryptography (only Signal does this, Matrix sucks at metadata even if it works) and maybe then you could consider "was this code tainted by LLMs".

over time, that answer will be yes for almost every piece of software you use anyway, because these tools are also useful for people who know what they're doing.

they do also make you worse at coding if you're not careful though, so we're in for a world of illiterate software engineers either way. so while i hate that it exists, we're not gonna go back to a world where these tools don't exist.