Hell, even with smaller projects, you’re going to have debug cycles and if AI is driving those cycles, it will be acting as a new coder for each invocation (which happens multiple times per prompt for systems like claude code).

So you’ll get shit like duplicate helper functions, other code not using those helper functions anyways, debug code added and then not removed, errors and warnings using a variety of styles, overly verbose and redundant arguments, support for enhancements that don’t even make sense in that context, confidently incorrect assertions about what is and isn’t happening or possible, etc.

My manager wants me to make a presentation that sells some AI debug solution but the hand holding I have to do for it to actually understand and not give useless conclusions means I don’t even believe in it. Or the case where it did help, turns out it didn’t even use the tools provided by the solution and was just CC.

I’ve mentioned the cycle of being impressed with what these LLM-based systems can do and feeling like I might have been unfairly critical, and then running in to a major issue that justfies the earlier critical view. Last times I mentioned it, I said I was in the impressed (but skeptical) part of the the cycle. Well, I’m back to the “this might just be a complete waste of resources” part of the cycle.