Pluralistic: The difference between "today's task" and "accretive work" (02 Jul 2026)
Cory Doctorow argues that AI coding paradoxes resolve when distinguishing "today's task" code from "accretive work." Drawing on the concept of "canonization," he explains that while personal, disposable code has value, the AI industry's focus on reverse centaurs consumes software canon without replenishing it.
Background
Cory Doctorow is a prominent blogger, journalist, and author who writes extensively about technology, monopoly power, and the internet. This post introduces two key concepts:
- **"Vibe coding"** is using generative AI to quickly create personal utilities — small programs for your own use, written in natural language prompts — like modern-day Hypercard or shell scripting. It's empowering and useful when done for yourself.
- **"Reverse centaurs"** is Doctorow's term for workers forced to be the fallible human backup for defective automation, marking AI's homework at superhuman speed and taking the blame when it fails. This is what happens when corporations use AI to fire workers and terrorize survivors, rather than giving workers tools they control.
The central argument: vibe coding for personal use is fine. Using AI to churn out "production code" that others must maintain — without canonization (the human work of making code reusable, legible, and maintainable) — creates catastrophic tech debt. The AI industry's business model requires the latter, destroying the very software commons it depends on.