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.

  • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    I mean… has anyone other than the company that made the tool said so? Like from a third party? I don’t trust that they’re not just advertising.

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      The answer to that is literally in the first sentence of the body of the article I linked to.

      • DSN9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Ai says Ai correction tool about how crappy Ai is at coding’s article is 99 percent chance of being Ai, results generated by Ai. . .