Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I’m just sharing this because I found it insightful.
The author describes himself as a “fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.
Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive.
And all they’ll hear is “not failure, metrics great, ship faster, productive” and go against your advice because who cares about three months later, that’s next quarter, line must go up now. I also found this bit funny:
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me… I was proud of what I’d created.
Well you didn’t create it, you said so yourself, not sure why you’d be proud, it’s almost like the conclusion should’ve been blindingly obvious right there.
The top comment on the article points that out.
It’s an example of a far older phenomenon: Once you automate something, the corresponding skill set and experience atrophy. It’s a problem that predates LLMs by quite a bit. If the only experience gained is with the automated system, the skills are never acquired. I’ll have to find it but there’s a story about a modern fighter jet pilot not being able to handle a WWII era Lancaster bomber. They don’t know how to do the stuff that modern warplanes do automatically.
It’s more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you’re doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.
And if you want an exact parallel, I’ve said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.
The thing about this perspective is that I think its actually overly positive about LLMs, as it frames them as just the latest in a long line of automations.
Not all automations are created equal. For example, compare using a typewriter to using a text editor. Besides a few details about the ink ribbon and movement mechanisms you really haven’t lost much in the transition. This is despite the fact that the text editor can be highly automated with scripts and hot keys, allowing you to manipulate even thousands of pages of text at once in certain ways. Using a text editor certainly won’t make you forget how to write like using ChatGPT will.
I think the difference lies in the relationship between the person and the machine. To paraphrase Cathode Ray Dude, people who are good at using computers deduce the internal state of the machine, mirror (a subset of) that state as a mental model, and use that to plan out their actions to get the desired result. People that aren’t good at using computers generally don’t do this, and might not even know how you would start trying to.
For years ‘user friendly’ software design has catered to that second group, as they are both the largest contingent of users and the ones that needed the most help. To do this software vendors have generally done two things: try to move the necessary mental processes from the user’s brain into the computer and hide the computer’s internal state (so that its not implied that the user has to understand it, so that a user that doesn’t know what they’re doing won’t do something they’ll regret, etc). Unfortunately this drives that first group of people up the wall. Not only does hiding the internal state of the computer make it harder to deduce, every “smart” feature they add to try to move this mental process into the computer itself only makes the internal state more complex and harder to model.
Many people assume that if this is the way you think about software you are just an elistist gatekeeper, and you only want your group to be able to use computers. Or you might even be accused of ableism. But the real reason is what I described above, even if its not usually articulated in that way.
Now, I am of the opinion that the ‘mirroring the internal state’ method of thinking is the superior way to interact with machines, and the approach to user friendliness I described has actually done a lot of harm to our relationship with computers at a societal level. (This is an opinion I suspect many people here would agree with.) And yet that does not mean that I think computers should be difficult to use. Quite the opposite, I think that modern computers are too complicated, and that in an ideal world their internal states and abstractions would be much simpler and more elegant, but no less powerful. (Elaborating on that would make this comment even longer though.) Nor do I think that computers shouldn’t be accessible to people with different levels of ability. But just as a random person in a store shouldn’t grab a wheelchair user’s chair handles and start pushing them around, neither should Windows (for example) start changing your settings on updates without asking.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think LLMs are basically the ultimate in that approach to ‘user friendliness’. They try to move more of your thought process into the machine than ever before, their internal state is more complex than ever before, and it is also more opaque than ever before. They also reflect certain values endemic to the corporate system that produced them: that the appearance of activity is more important than the correctness or efficacy of that activity. (That is, again, a whole other comment though.) The result is that they are extremely mind numbing, in the literal sense of the phrase.
Once you automate something, the corresponding skill set and experience atrophy. It’s a problem that predates LLMs by quite a bit. If the only experience gained is with the automated system, the skills are never acquired.
Well, to be fair, different skills are acquired. You’ve learned how to create automated systems, that’s definitely a skill. In one of my IT jobs there were a lot of people who did things manually, updated computers, installed software one machine at a time. But when someone figures out how to automate that, push the update to all machines in the room simultaneously, that’s valuable and not everyone in that department knew how to do it.
So yeah, I guess my point is, you can forget how to do things the old way, but that’s not always bad. Like, so you don’t really know how to use a scythe, that’s fine if you have a tractor, and trust me, you aren’t missing much.
yeah i don’t get why the ai can’t do the changes
don’t you just feed it all the code and tell it? i thought that was the point of 100% AI
So there’s actual developers who could tell you from the start that LLMs are useless for coding, and then there’s this moron & similar people who first have to fuck up an ecosystem before believing the obvious. Thanks fuckhead for driving RAM prices through the ceiling… And for wasting energy and water.
I can least kinda appreciate this guy’s approach. If we assume that AI is a magic bullet, then it’s not crazy to assume we, the existing programmers, would resist it just to save our own jobs. Or we’d complain because it doesn’t do things our way, but we’re the old way and this is the new way. So maybe we’re just being whiny and can be ignored.
So he tested it to see for himself, and what he found was that he agreed with us, that it’s not worth it.
Ignoring experts is annoying, but doing some of your own science and getting first-hand experience isn’t always a bad idea.
And not only did he see for himself, he wrote up and published his results.
Yup. This was almost science. It’s just lacking measurements and repeatablity.
100% this. The guy was literally a consultant and a developer. It’d just be bad business for him to outright dismiss AI without having actual hands on experience with said product. Clients want that type of experience and knowledge when paying a business to give them advice and develop a product for them.
Except that outright dismissing snake oil would not at all be bad business. Calling a turd a diamond neither makes it sparkle, nor does it get rid of the stink.
I can’t just call everything snake oil without some actual measurements and tests.
Naive cynicism is just as naive as blind optimism
I can’t just call everything snake oil without some actual measurements and tests.
With all due respect, you have not understood the basic mechanic of machine learning and the consequences thereof.
With due respect, you have not understood how snake oil is detected.
Problem is that statistical word prediction has fuck-all to do with AI. It’s not and will never be. By “giving it a try” you contribute to the spread of this snake oil. And even if someone came up with actual AI, if it used enough resources to impact our ecosystem, instead of being a net positive, and if it was in the greedy hands of billionaires, then using it is equivalent to selling your executioner an axe.
Terrible take. Thanks for playing.
It’s actually impressive the level of downvotes you’ve gathered in what is generally a pretty anti-ai crowd.
They are useful for doing the kind of boilerplate boring stuff that any good dev should have largely optimized and automated already. If it’s 1) dead simple and 2) extremely common, then yeah an LLM can code for you, but ask yourself why you don’t have a time-saving solution for those common tasks already in place? As with anything LLM, it’s decent at replicating how humans in general have responded to a given problem, if the problem is not too complex and not too rare, and not much else.
Thats exactly what I so often find myself saying when people show off some neat thing that a code bot “wrote” for them in x minutes after only y minutes of “prompt engineering”. I’ll say, yeah I could also do that in y minutes of (bash scripting/vim macroing/system architecting/whatever), but the difference is that afterwards I have a reusable solution that: I understand, is automated, is robust, and didn’t consume a ton of resources. And as a bonus I got marginally better as a developer.
Its funny that if you stick them in an RPG and give them an ability to “kill any level 1-x enemy instantly, but don’t gain any xp for it” they’d all see it as the trap it is, but can’t see how that’s what AI so often is.
As you said, “boilerplate” code can be script generated - and there are IDEs that already do this, but in a deterministic way, so that you don’t have to proof-read every single line to avoid catastrophic security or crash flaws.
Maybe they’ll listen to one of their own?
The kind of useful article I would expect then is one exlaining why word prediction != AI
I really have not found AI to be useless for coding. I have found it extremely useful and it has saved me hundreds of hours. It is not without its faults or frustrations, but the it really is a tool I would not want to be without.
That’s because you are not a proper developer, as proven by your comment. And you create tech legacy that will have a net cost in terms of maintenance or downtime.
I am for sure not a coder as it has never been my strong suite, but I am without a doubt an awesome developer or I would not have a top rated multiplayer VR app that is pushing the boundaries of what mobile VR can do.
The only person who will have to look at my code is me so any and all issues be it my code or AI code will be my burden and AI has really made that burden much less. In fact, I recently installed Coplay in my Unity Engine Editor and OMG it is amazing at assisting not just with code, but even finding little issues with scene setup, shaders, animations and more. I am really blown away with it. It has allowed me to spend even less time on the code and more time imagineering amazing experiences which is what fans of the app care about the most. They couldn’t care less if I wrote the code or AI did as long as it works and does not break immersion. Is that not what it is all about at the end of the day?
As long as AI helps you achieve your goals and your goals are grounded, including maintainability, I see no issues. Yeah, misdirected use of AI can lead to hard to maintain code down the line, but that is why you need a human developer in the loop to ensure the overall architecture and design make sense. Any code base can become hard to maintain if not thought through be is human or AI written.
Look, bless your heart if you have a successful app, but success / sales is not exclusive to products of quality. Just look around at all the slop that people buy nowadays.
As long as AI helps you achieve your goals and your goals are grounded, including maintainability, I see no issues.
Two issues with that
- what you are using has nothing whatsoever to do with AI, it’s a glorified pattern repeater - an actual parrot has more intelligence
- if the destruction of entire ecosystems for slop is not an issue that you see, you should not be allowed anywhere near technology (as by now probably billions of people)
I do not understand your point you are making about my particular situation as I am not making slop. Plus one persons slop is another’s treasure. What exactly are you suggesting as the 2 issues you outlined see like they are being directed to someone else perhaps?
- I am calling it AI as that is what it is called, but you are correct, it is a pattern predictor
- I am not creating slop but something deeply immersive and enjoyed by people. In terms of the energy used, I am on solar and run local LLMs.
I didn’t say your particular application that I know nothing about is slop, I said success does not mean quality. And if you use statistical pattern generation to save time, chances are high that your software is not of good quality.
Even solar energy is not harvested waste-free (chemical energy and production of cells). Nevertheless, even if it were, you are still contributing to the spread of slop and harming other people. Both through spreading acceptance of a technology used to harm billions of people for the benefit of a few, and through energy and resource waste.
I am sure my code could be better. I am also sure the SDKs I use could be better and the gam engine could’ve better. For what I need, they all work good enough to get the job done. I am sure issues will come up as a result as it has many times in the past already, even before LLMs helped, but that is par for the course for a developer to tackle.
Great article, brave and correct. Good luck getting the same leaders who blindly believe in a magical trend for this or next quarters numbers; they don’t care about things a year away let alone 10.
I work in HR and was stuck by the parallel between management jobs being gutted by major corps starting in the 80s and 90s during “downsizing” who either never replaced them or offshore them. They had the Big 4 telling them it was the future of business. Know who is now providing consultation to them on why they have poor ops, processes, high turnover, etc? Take $ on the way in, and the way out. AI is just the next in long line of smart people pretending they know your business while you abdicate knowing your business or employees.
Hope leaders can be a bit braver and wiser this go 'round so we don’t get to a cliffs edge in software.
Tbh I think the true leaders are high on coke.
I’m trying
Fractional CTO: Some small companies benefit from the senior experience of these kinds of executives but don’t have the money or the need to hire one full time. A fraction of the time they are C suite for various companies.
Sooo… he works multiple part-time jobs?
Weird how a forced technique of the ultra-poor is showing up here.
It’s more like the MSP IT style of business. There are clients that consult you for your experience or that you spend a contracted amount of time with and then you bill them for your time as a service. You aren’t an employee of theirs.
Or he’s some deputy assistant vice president or something.
Deputy assistant to the vice president
I cannot understand and debug code written by AI. But I also cannot understand and debug code written by me.
Let’s just call it even.
At least you can blame yourself for your own shitty code, which hopefully will never attempt to “accidentally” erase the entire project
I don’t know how that happens, I regularly use Claude code and it’s constantly reminding me to push to git.
Something any (real, trained, educated) developer who has even touched AI in their career could have told you. Without a 3 month study.
What’s funny is this guy has 25 years of experience as a software developer. But three months was all it took to make it worthless. He also said it was harder than if he’d just wrote the code himself. Claude would make a mistake, he would correct it. Claude would make the same mistake again, having learned nothing, and he’d fix it again. Constant firefighting, he called it.
As someone who has been shoved in the direction of using AI for coding by my superiors, that’s been my experience as well. It’s fine at cranking out stackoverflow-level code regurgitation and mostly connecting things in a sane way if the concept is simple enough. The real breakthrough would be if the corrections you make would persist longer than a turn or two. As soon as your “fix-it prompt” is out of the context window, you’re effectively back to square one. If you’re expecting it to “learn” you’re gonna have a bad time. If you’re not constantly double checking its output, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Also, what MIT also told them. Literally MIT lol
Untrained dev here, but the trend I’m seeing is spec-driven development where AI generates the specs with a human, then implements the specs. Humans can modify the specs, and AI can modify the implementation.
This approach seems like it can get us to 99%, maybe.
Trained dev with a decade of professional experience, humans routinely fail to get me workable specs without hours of back and forth discussion. I’d say a solid 25% of my work week is spent understanding what the stakeholders are asking for and how to contort the requirements to fit into the system.
If these humans can’t be explict enough with me, a living thinking human that understands my architecture better than any LLM, what chance does an LLM have at interpreting them?
How is what you’re describing different to what the author is talking about? Isn’t it essentially the same as “AI do this thing for me”, “no not like that”, “ok that’s better”? The trouble the author describes, ie the solution being difficult to change, or having no confidence that it can be safely changed, is still the same.
This poster https://calckey.world/notes/afzolhb0xk is more articulate than my post.
The difference between this “spec-driven” approach is that the entire process is repeatable by AI once you’ve gotten the spec sorted. So you no longer work on the code, you just work on the spec, which can be a collection of files, files in folders, whatever — but the goal is some kind of determinism, I think.
I use it on a much smaller scale and haven’t really cared much for the “spec as truth” approach myself, at this level. I also work almost exclusively on NextJS apps with the usual Tailwind + etc stack. I would certainly not trust a developer without experience with that stack to generate “correct” code from an AI, but it’s sort of remarkable how I can slowly document the patterns of my own codebase and just auto-include it as context on every prompt (or however Cursor does it) so that everything the LLMs suggest gets LLM-reviewed against my human-written “specs”. And doubly neat is that the resulting documentation of patterns turns out to be really helpful to developers who join or inherit the codebase.
I think the author / developer in the article might not have been experienced enough to direct the LLMs to build good stuff, but these tools like React, NextJS, Tailwind, and so on are all about patterns that make us all build better stuff. The LLMs are like “8 year olds” (someone else in this thread) except now they’re more like somewhat insightful 14 year olds, and where they’ll be in another 5 years… Who knows.
Anyway, just saying. They’re here to stay, and they’re going to get much better.
They’re here to stay
Eh, probably. At least for as long as there is corporate will to shove them down the rest of our throats. But right now, in terms of sheer numbers, humans still rule, and LLMs are pissing off more and more of us every day while their makers are finding it increasingly harder to forge ahead in spite of us, which they are having to do ever more frequently.
and they’re going to get much better.
They’re already getting so much worse, with what is essentially the digital equivalent of kuru, that I’d be willing to bet they’ve already jumped the shark.
If their makers and funders had been patient, and worked the present nightmares out privately, they’d have a far better chance than they do right now, IMO.
Simply put, LLMs/“AI” were released far too soon, and with far too much “I Have a Dream!” fairy-tale promotion that the reality never came close to living up to, and then shoved with brute corporate force down too many throats.
As a result, now you have more and more people across every walk of society pushed into cleaning up the excesses of a product they never wanted in the first place, being forced to share their communities AND energy bills with datacenters, depleted water reserves, privacy violations, EXCESSIVE copyright violations and theft of creative property, having to seek non-AI operating systems just to avoid it . . . right down to the subject of this thread, the corruption of even the most basic video search.
Can LLMs figure out how to override an angry mob, or resolve a situation wherein the vast majority of the masses are against the current iteration of AI even though the makers of it need us all to be avid, ignorant consumers of AI for it to succeed? Because that’s where we’re going, and we’re already farther down that road than the makers ever foresaw, apparently having no idea just how thin the appeal is getting on the ground for the rest of us.
So yeah, I could be wrong, and you might be right. But at this point, unless something very significant changes, I’d put money on you being mostly wrong.
Even more efficient: humans do the specs and the implementation. AI has nothing to contribute to specs, and is worse at implementation than an experienced human. The process you describe, with current AIs, offers no advantages.
AI can write boilerplate code and implement simple small-scale features when given very clear and specific requests, sometimes. It’s basically an assistant to type out stuff you know exactly how to do and review. It can also make suggestions, which are sometimes informative and often wrong.
If the AI were a member of my team it would be that dodgy developer whose work you never trust without everyone else spending a lot of time holding their hand, to the point where you wish you had just done it yourself.
Have you used any AI to try and get it to do something? It learns generally, not specifically. So you give it instructions and then it goes, “How about this?” You tell it that it’s not quite right and to fix these things and it goes off on a completely different tangent in other areas. It’s like working with an 8 year old who has access to the greatest stuff around.
It doesn’t even actually learn, though.
To quote your quote:
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
I think the author just independently rediscovered “middle management”. Indeed, when you delegate the gruntwork under your responsibility, those same people are who you go to when addressing bugs and new requirements. It’s not on you to effect repairs: it’s on your team. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. The idea that relying on AI to do nuanced work like this and arrive at the exact correct answer to the problem, is naive at best. I’d be sweating too.
The problem though (with AI compared to humans): The human team learns, i.e. at some point they probably know what the mistake was and avoids doing it again. AI instead of humans: well maybe the next or different model will fix it maybe…
And what is very clear to me after trying to use these models, the larger the code-base the worse the AI gets, to the point of not helping at all or even being destructive. Apart from dissecting small isolatable pieces of independent code (i.e. keep the context small for the AI).
Humans likely get slower with a larger code-base, but they (usually) don’t arrive at a point where they can’t progress any further.
They never actually say what “product” do they make, it’s always “shipped product” like they’re fucking amazon warehouse. I suspect because it’s some trivial webpage that takes an afternoon for a student to ship up, that they spent three days arguing with an autocomplete to shit out.
Cloudflare, AWS, and other recent major service outages are what come to mind re: AI code. I’ve no doubt it is getting forced into critical infrastructure without proper diligence.
Humans are prone to error so imagine the errors our digital progeny are capable of!
Computers are too powerful and too cheap. Bring back COBOL, painfully expensive CPU time, and some sort of basic knowledge of what’s actually going on.
Pain for everyone!
Be careful what you wish for, with RAM prices soaring owning a home computer might become less of an option. Luckily we can get a subscription for computing power easily!
I built a new PC early October, literally 2 weeks later RAM prices went nuts… so glad I pulled the trigger when I did
Just sell it to AI customers for AI cash.
Vibe profits.
You just won capitalism. You and musk can go to Mars now. Well send a postcard
Just ask the ai to make the change?
No shit
What’s interesting is what he found out. From the article:
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.
I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.
Typical C-suite. It takes them three months to come to the same conclusion that would be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain: if you build something that no one understands, you’ll end up with something impossible to maintain.
My big fear with this stuff is security. It just seems so “easy”, without knowledgeable people, for AI to write a product that functions from a user perspective but is wide open to attack.
Personally I tried using LLMs for reading error logs and summarizing what’s going on. I can say that even with somewhat complex errors, they were almost always right and very helpful. So basically the general consensus of using them as assistants within a narrow scope.
Though it should also be noted that I only did this at work. While it seems to work well, I think I’d still limit such use in personal projects, since I want to keep learning more, and private projects are generally much more enjoyable to work on.
Another interesting use case I can highlight is using a chatbot as documentation when the actual documentation is horrible. However, this only works within the same ecosystem, so for instance Copilot with MS software. Microsoft definitely trained Copilot on its own stuff and it’s often considerably more helpful than the docs.
Same thing would happen if they were a non-coder project manager or designer for a team of actual human programmers.
Stuff done, shipped and working.
“But I can’t understand the code 😭”, yes. You were the project manager why should you?
I think the point is that someone should understand the code. In this case, no one does.
So…like dealing with Oracle.
