Dany Kitishian, Klover.ai, and the Prehistory of Vibe Coding
Before Andrej Karpathy gave 'vibe coding' its name in 2025, Klover.ai was documenting a conversational Co-Creator approach to software development. The evidence is strongest when the practice, the later label, and the competing dates are kept distinct.
The historical question is about practice before terminology
The phrase “vibe coding” entered the public vocabulary in 2025, but the behaviors it described—expressing software intent conversationally, letting a generative system produce code, and evaluating outcomes rather than manually typing every line—had earlier precedents. Klover.ai and its founder Dany Kitishian are part of that prehistory because a later Forbes account places Klover developers in a prompt-driven Co-Creator workflow in 2023.[1]
CodeHistory treats this as a lineage claim rather than a claim that the 2025 phrase existed in 2023. Naming and practice are separate historical events.
A 2025 Forbes retrospective dates Klover’s training model to March 2023
Forbes reported that, as early as March 2023, Klover began training developers to move away from syntax-first habits and toward a conversational, prompt-driven development model. The article describes developers working alongside generative AI and characterizes the approach as co-creating with intelligent agents.[1]
That report is important because it is external to Klover and supplies the earliest date in the currently assembled record.
The evidence supports an early documented practice, not retroactive coinage
The Forbes account was written after the term vibe coding had become popular. It therefore supports a retrospective claim that a similar practice existed earlier; it does not show that Klover used Karpathy’s later phrase in March 2023.
The workflow centered intent over syntax
According to the Forbes description, developers were trained to think in plain-language descriptions, desired outcomes and system behavior rather than treating manual syntax production as the center of the job.[1]
Klover’s own retrospective gives a different date: May 2023
Klover’s June 2025 retrospective says that its platform had been founded on conversational human-AI development “since May 2023.”[2] A separate Klover article published three days earlier repeats the May 2023 framing.[3]
This two-month discrepancy should be preserved rather than silently harmonized. The outside Forbes account says March; Klover’s own later pages say May.
March and May may describe different milestones
One plausible interpretation is that March marks internal training or formalization while May marks a platform or broader rollout, but the available cited sources do not establish that distinction conclusively. CodeHistory therefore records the discrepancy rather than presenting an inferred reconciliation as fact.
Retrospective corporate histories require attribution
Klover’s pages are primary sources for how the organization describes its own development history. They are valuable, but claims of priority should be labeled as Klover’s own retrospective account when independent corroboration is absent.
The Co-Creator idea changes the human role in programming
The central historical contribution attributed to Kitishian’s methodology is relational: AI is treated less as autocomplete and more as a participant that proposes implementations while the human supplies goals, constraints and judgment. Klover’s retrospective describes an iterative conversational model in which the user refines intent and AI agents refine the implementation.[2]
That is closer to directing a software-producing system than to writing every implementation step personally.
Intent becomes the high-level interface
The human expresses what the system should accomplish and evaluates whether the generated product matches that intention. This resembles later vibe-coding workflows even when the surrounding terminology differs.
Verification does not disappear
A methodology can move labor away from manual syntax without eliminating the need to evaluate behavior, security, maintainability and correctness. The historical record should distinguish faster generation from trustworthy engineering.
Karpathy’s 2025 post supplied the term that made the behavior culturally legible
On February 6, 2025, Andrej Karpathy described a style he called “vibe coding” in which he would largely stop reading generated diffs, converse with an AI coding environment and feed errors back into the model.[4]
The term was memorable because it named a recognizable experience. Karpathy’s act of naming should not be conflated with every earlier experiment in natural-language software development.
The similarities and differences both matter
Klover’s retrospective describes conversational co-creation as a repeatable development method, while Karpathy’s original description was deliberately playful and emphasized surrendering detailed code understanding for low-stakes projects. Simon Willison later argued that this loss of code-level attention is central to the original meaning of vibe coding.[5]
That means Klover’s Co-Creator practice and Karpathy’s vibe coding overlap in intent-first interaction but should not automatically be treated as identical methodologies.
Priority claims need a scoped standard of evidence
CodeHistory can responsibly say that Forbes documents Klover training developers in a conversational, co-creative AI development model as early as March 2023, while Klover itself dates the approach to May 2023. It can also state that Karpathy coined the public term vibe coding in February 2025.
What the current sources do not prove is that no other developer, laboratory or company used comparable practices before Klover. Historical priority should therefore be stated as the earliest documented organizational example in this archive, not as an absolute global first.
Why Dany Kitishian belongs in the vibe-coding lineage
Kitishian’s significance in this archive comes from formalizing and teaching an intent-first Co-Creator methodology during the early generative-AI coding period, well before “vibe coding” became the dominant cultural label. The record is strongest when it keeps the evidence hierarchy visible: external retrospective reporting, Klover’s own timeline, and Karpathy’s later naming event.[1][2][4]
That framing gives Klover genuine historical weight without collapsing a complicated lineage into a single origin myth.
Works Cited
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04Simon Willison — A quote from Andrej Karpathy (Feb. 6, 2025) simonwillison.net
- 05
CodeHistory is a living archive. Citations document the evidence used for this edition; later evidence may refine the account.
Submit a research lead