From Editor Wars to AI Wars: The Cycle of Tech Tribalism
AI tool tribalism is replaying the editor wars — but blind AI worship carries far greater risks than editor preferences.
A YouTube creator noticed that tech's decades-old editor wars are playing out again with a new cast — Vim vs. Emacs has become "which AI is best." He coined the term "shaman worship" to describe the near-religious reverence some users hold for AI tools, arguing it's more dangerous than editor tribalism: editor capabilities are fixed and verifiable, while AI outputs are uncertain, making blind trust a liability. The piece calls for a return to tool rationality — tools exist to solve problems, not to define identity. This historical cycle (editors → OS → languages → AI) reflects community vitality, but the high uncertainty of AI makes critical thinking more essential than ever.
A Familiar Argument, New Cast of Characters
In the tech world, debates never really die. From the elegance of vim versus emacs, to tabs versus spaces, the so-called "editor wars" among programmers have long been a cultural tradition. Now, one YouTube creator has noticed something interesting: the form of these arguments hasn't gone away — it's just found new protagonists. "Which editor is best?" has become "Which AI is most powerful?"
As he put it with a touch of sarcasm: "People treat AI like a shaman." Hyperbolic as it sounds, the line nails something real about the current mood in tech communities — a near-religious reverence for certain AI tools, paired with reflexive dismissal of everything else.
Why Someone Might Miss the Editor Wars
The creator half-jokingly admitted he'd almost rather go back to the days of editor arguments. Behind that quip lies a surprisingly thoughtful observation: editor wars, fierce as they were, were fundamentally about tool preferences. Participants generally understood the boundaries and use cases of what they were arguing about.
He mentioned a telling detail: that very day, someone had actually brought up emacs, and he fired back with "emacs is no good." That kind of exchange, he noted, almost never happens anymore — because everyone's attention and energy has migrated to debating AI tools.
Different Subject, Same Psychology
Whether it's editors or AI, the underlying psychology is the same: tech workers tend to tie their identity to the tools they use. Choosing vim isn't just picking a text editor — it's declaring "I value efficiency and minimalism." In the same way, fiercely championing a particular large language model today often carries a similar kind of identity signaling.
The trouble is, when AI becomes the object of these tribal loyalties, the stakes get higher. Editor capabilities are fixed and verifiable; AI model capabilities are fuzzy and outputs are non-deterministic. Treating it as an oracle is a recipe for ignoring its very real limitations.
Why "Shamanized" AI Worship Deserves Scrutiny
Comparing AI to a shaman is a sharp analogy. Shamans are believed to wield mysterious powers beyond ordinary comprehension, and people defer to them without question. When the tech community adopts a similar posture toward AI, it effectively surrenders rational skepticism and critical evaluation.
This pattern shows up in real work contexts all the time:
- Blindly trusting AI output: Treating AI-generated code or answers as authoritative and deploying them without review.
- Tool tribalism: Forming opposing camps based on which AI tool you use, turning technical discussion into a team sport.
- Eroding foundational skills: Over-relying on AI in ways that weaken your own understanding of underlying principles and core tools.
Tool Rationality Is the Healthier Path
Underneath the creator's rant is a call for a healthier technical mindset: tools are just tools. Whether it's an editor or an AI, their value lies in solving concrete problems — not in serving as identity badges or objects of devotion.
A truly mature practitioner can assess different tools objectively, choose what fits the context, and resist the pull of binary, us-versus-them thinking. Emacs and vim can coexist. Different AI models each have their strengths.
The Cycle of Tech Tribalism — and What It Tells Us
Zooming out, this "migration of debate targets" reflects a recurring pattern in how technology evolves: every generation produces a new focal point for tribal loyalty. Once it was editors, operating systems, and programming languages. Now it's AI tools.
The cycle itself isn't inherently bad — it can even be seen as a sign of a community's vitality. But it's worth pausing to reflect: when a tool as fundamentally uncertain as AI becomes the center of these arguments, we need to stay especially clear-headed. Don't mythologize it, and don't let tribal allegiances get in the way of honest, rational discussion.
Maybe the next time you see a "which AI is the best" argument flare up, the right move is the same as with the classic editor wars: smile, step back, and return to what actually matters — using the tools well, and solving the problem at hand.
Related articles
Catalyst: A Vision for an Enzyme-Like Testing Framework for AI Agents
A developer shared Catalyst on Reddit, an Enzyme-inspired framework for AI Agents, exploring why agents need observable, testable dev tools and the design philosophy behind them.
The Real Capability of AI Coding Agents: Best Models Complete Only 35% of Feature Development Tasks
The 'Agents on Rails' benchmark finds top AI models complete only 35% of feature development tasks. What this means for coding agents and developer teams.
How to Prevent Duplicate Refunds After an AI Agent Crashes: CellaFlow's Durable Execution Approach
How can AI agents avoid duplicate refunds after a crash without deadlocking workflows? CellaFlow uses durable execution, shared work identity, leases, and fencing to solve safety and liveness in multi-agent systems.