Not saying the frontier models aren't smarter than the ones I can run on my two 4090s (they absolutely are) but I feel like you're exaggerating the security implications a bit.
We've seen some absolutely glaring security issues with vibe-coded apps / websites that did use Claude (most recently Moltbook).
No matter whether you're vibe coding with frontier models or local ones, you simply cannot rely on the model knowing what it is doing. Frankly, if you rely on the model's alignment training for writing secure authentication flows, you are doing it wrong. Claude Opus or Qwen3 Coder Next isn't responsible if you ship insecure code - you are.
You're right, and the Moltbook example actually supports the broader point - even Claude Opus with all its alignment training produced insecure code that shipped. The model fallback just widens the gap.
I agree nobody should rely on model alignment for security. My argument isn't "Claude is secure and local models aren't" - it's that the gap between what the model produces and what a human reviews narrows when the model at least flags obvious issues. Worse model = more surface area for things to slip through unreviewed.
But your core point stands: the responsibility is on you regardless of what model you use. The toolchain around the model matters more than the model itself.
We've seen some absolutely glaring security issues with vibe-coded apps / websites that did use Claude (most recently Moltbook).
No matter whether you're vibe coding with frontier models or local ones, you simply cannot rely on the model knowing what it is doing. Frankly, if you rely on the model's alignment training for writing secure authentication flows, you are doing it wrong. Claude Opus or Qwen3 Coder Next isn't responsible if you ship insecure code - you are.