Vibe Coding and the Fragmentation of Open Source

Why Machine-Writing Code is the Best (and Most Dangerous) Thing for Geospatial:   The current discourse surrounding AI coding is nothing if not polarized. On one side, the technofuturists urge us to throw away our keyboards; on the other, skeptics dismiss Large Language Models (LLMs) as little more than "fancy autocomplete" that will never replace a "real" engineer. Both sides miss the nuanced reality of the shift we are living through right now.   I recently sat down with Matt Hansen, Director of Geospatial Ecosystems at Element 84, to discuss this transition. With a 30-year career spanning the death of photographic film to the birth of Cloud-Native Geospatial, Hansen has a unique vantage point on how technology shifts redefine our roles. He isn’t predicting a distant future; he is describing a present where the barrier between an idea and a functioning tool has effectively collapsed.   The "D" Student Who Built the Future Hansen’s journey into the heart of open-source leadership began with what he initially thought was a terminal failure. As a freshman at the Rochester Institute of Technology, he found himself in a C programming class populated almost entirely by seasoned professionals from Kodak. Intimidated and overwhelmed by the "syntax wall," he withdrew from the class the first time and scraped by with a "D" on his second attempt. For years, he believed software simply wasn't his path. Today, however, he is a primary architect of the SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog (STAC) ecosystem and a major open-source contributor. This trajectory is the perfect case study for the democratizing power of AI: it allows the subject matter expert—the person who understands "photographic technology" or "imaging science"—to bypass the mechanical hurdles of brackets and semi-colons. "I took your class twice and thought I was never software... and now here I am like a regular contributor to open source software for geospatial." — Matt Hansen to his former professor.   The Rise of "Vibe Coding" and the Fragmentation Trap   We are entering the era of "vibe coding," where developers prompt AI based on a general description or "vibe" of what they need. While this is exhilarating for the individual, it creates a systemic risk of "bespoke implementations." When a user asks an AI for a solution without a deep architectural understanding, the machine often generates a narrow, unvetted fragment of code rather than utilizing a secure, scalable library. The danger here is a catastrophic loss of signal. If thousands of users release these AI-generated fragments onto platforms like GitHub, we risk drowning out the vetted, high-quality solutions that the community has spent decades building. We are creating a "sea of noise" that could make it harder for both humans and future AI models to identify the standard, proper way to solve a problem.   Why Geospatial is Still "Special" (The Anti-meridian Test)   For a long time, the industry mantra has been "geospatial isn’t special," pushing for spatial data to be treated as just another data type, like in GeoParquet. However, Hansen argues that AI actually proves that domain expertise is more critical than ever. Without specific guidance, AI often fails to account for the unique edge cases of a spherical world. Consider the "anti-meridian" problem: polygons crossing the 180th meridian. When asked to handle spatial data, an AI will often "brute force" a custom logic that works for a small, localized dataset but fails the moment it encounters the wrap-around logic of a global scale. A domain expert knows to direct the AI toward Pete Kadomsky’s "anti-meridian" library. AI is not a subject matter expert; it is a powerful engine that requires an expert navigator to avoid the "Valley of Despair."   Documentation is Now SEO for the Machines   We are seeing a counterintuitive shift in how we value documentation. Traditionally, README files and tutorials were written by humans, for humans. In the age of AI, documentation has become the primary way we "market" our code to the machines. If your open-source project lacks a clean README or a rigorous specification, it is effectively invisible to the AI-driven future of development. By investing in high-quality documentation, developers are engaging in a form of technical SEO. You are ensuring that when an AI looks for the "signal" in the noise, it chooses your vetted library because it is the most readable and reliable option available.   From Software Developers to Software Designers   The role of the geospatial professional is shifting from writing syntax to what Hansen calls the "Foundry" model. Using tools like GitHub Specit, the human acts as a designer, defining rigorous blueprints, constraints, and requirements in human language. The machine then executes the "how," while the human remains the sole arbiter of the "what" and "why." Hansen’s advice for the next generation—particularly those entering a job market currently hostile to junior engineers—is to abandon generalism. Don't just learn to code; become a specialist in a domain like geospatial. The ability to write Python is becoming a commodity, but the ability to design a system that accounts for the nuances of remote sensing is an increasingly rare and valuable asset.   History Repeats: The "Priesthood" of Assembly   This shift mirrors the 1950s, when the "priesthood" of assembly programmers looked at the first compilers with deep suspicion. Kathleen Booth, who wrote the first assembly language, lived in a world where manual coding was an arcane, elite skill. Those early programmers argued that compilers were untrustworthy and that a human could always write "better" code by hand. They were technically right about efficiency, but they were wrong about the future. Just as the compiler was "good enough" to allow us to move "up the stack" and take on more complex problems, AI is the next level of abstraction. We might use a "Ralph Wiggum script"—a loop that feeds AI output back into itself until the task is "done"—and while it may be a brute-force method, it is often more productive than the perfection of the past.   Conclusion: The Future is a Specialist's Game   We are moving away from being the writers of code and toward being the designers of systems. While the "syntax wall" has been demolished, the requirement for domain knowledge has only grown higher. The keyboard isn't dying; it is being repurposed for higher-level architectural thought.   As the industry experiences a "recursive improvement" of these tools, the question for every professional is no longer about whether the machine can do your job. It’s whether you have the specialized expertise to tell the machine what a "good enough" job actually looks like. Are you prepared to stop being a coder and start being a designer?