Comment by hdhdhsjsbdh
8 days ago
It has made my job an awful slog, and my personal projects move faster.
At work, the devs up the chain now do everything with AI – not just coding – then task me with cleaning it up. It is painful and time consuming, the code base is a mess. In one case I had to merge a feature from one team into the main code base, but the feature was AI coded so it did not obey the API design of the main project. It also included a ton of stuff you don’t need in the first pass - a ton of error checking and hand-rolled parsing, etc, that I had to spend over a week unrolling so that I could trim it down and redesign it to work in the main codebase. It was a slog, and it also made me look bad because it took me forever compared to the team who originally churned it out almost instantly. AI tools are not good at this kind of design deconflicting task, so while it’s easy to get the initial concept out the gate almost instantly, you can’t just magically fit it into the bigger codebase without facing the technical debt you’ve generated.
In my personal projects, I get to experience a bit of the fun I think others are having. You can very quickly build out new features, explore new ideas, etc. You have to be thoughtful about the design because the codebase can get messy and hard to build on. Often I design the APIs and then have Claude critique them and implement them.
I think the future is bleak for people in my spot professionally – not junior, but also not leading the team. I think the middle will be hollowed out and replaced with principals who set direction, coordinate, and execute. A privileged few will be hired and developed to become leaders eventually (or strike gold with their own projects), but everyone in between is in trouble.
If you dont take a stand and refuse to clean their mess, aren't you part of the problem? No self respecting proponent of AI enabled development should suggest that the engineers generating the code are still not personally responsible for its quality.
Ultimately that's only an option if you can sustain the impact to your career (not getting promoted, or getting fired). My org (publicly traded, household name, <5k employees) is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year. We have all the same successes and failures as everyone else, there's nothing special about our case, but our technical leadership is fundamentally convinced that this is both viable and necessary, and will not be told otherwise.
People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.
Practically speaking, there's no sexy pitch you can make about doing quality grunt work. I've made that mistake virtually every time I've joined a company: I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it: but if you're not shipping features, if you're not driving the income needle, you have a much more difficult time framing your value to a non-engineering audience, who ultimately sign the paychecks.
Obviously this varies wildly by organization, but it's been true everywhere I've worked to varying degrees. Some companies (and bosses) are more self-aware than others, which can help for framing the conversation (and retaining one's sanity), but at the end of the day if I'm making a stand about how bad AI quality is, but my AI-using coworker has shipped six medium sized features, I'm not winning that argument.
It doesn't help that I think non-engineers view code quality as a technical boogeyman and an internal issue to their engineering divisions. Our technical leadership's attitude towards our incidents has been "just write better code," which... Well. I don't need to explain the ridiculousness of that statement in this forum, but it undermines most people's criticism of AI. Sure, it writes crap code and misses business requirements; but in the eyes of my product team? That's just dealing with engineers in general. It's not like they can tell the difference.
Hi thanks for this brilliant feature. It will really improve the product. However it needs a little bit more work before we can merge it into our main product.
1) The new feature does not follow the existing API guidelines found here: see examples an and b.
2) The new feature does not use our existing input validation and security checking code, see example.
Once the following points have been addressed we will be happy to integrate it.
All the best.
The ball is now in their court and the feature should come back better
This is a politics problem. Engineers were sending each other crap long before AI.
3 replies →
There is an alternative way make the necessary point here.. Let it go through with comments to the effect that you can not attest to the quality or efficacy of the code and let the organization suffer the consequences of this foray into LLM usage. If they can't use these tools responsibly and are unwilling to listen to the people who can, then they deserve to hit the inevitable quality wall Where endless passes through the AI still can't deliver working software and their token budget goes through the ceiling attempting to make it work.
4 replies →
> My org [...] is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year.
> People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.
So either they're right (100% AI-generated code soon) and you'll be out of a job or they'll be wrong, but by then the smart people will have been gone for a while. Do you see a third future where next year you'll still have a job and the company will still have a future?
3 replies →
> ... I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it ...
These are exactly the kind of tasks that I ask an AI tool to perform.
Claude, Codex, et al are terrible at innovation. What they are good at is regurgitating patterns they've seen before, which often mean refactoring something into a more stable/common format. You can paste compiler warnings and errors into an agentic tool's input box and have it fix them for you, with a good chance for success.
I feel for your position within your org, but these tools are definitely shaking things up. Some tasks will be given over entirely to agentic tools.
1 reply →
Unfortunately not many companies seem to require engineers to cycle between "feature" and "maintainability" work - hence those looking for the low-hanging fruits and know how to virtue signal seem to build their career on "features" while engineers passionate about correct solutions are left to pay for it while also labelled as "inefficient" by management. It's all a clown show, especially now with vibe-coding - no wonder we have big companies having had multiple incidents since vibing started taking off.
1 reply →
Shipping “quality only” work for a long time can be stressful for your colleagues and the product teams.
You’re much better off mixing both (quality work and product features).
1 reply →
"aren't you part of the problem?"
Yes? In the same way any victim of shoddy practices is "part of the problem"?
Employees, especially ones as well leveraged and overpaid as software engineers, are not victims. They can leave. They _should_ leave. Great engineers are still able to bet better paying jobs all the time.
3 replies →
Came here to say this. The right solution to this is still the same as it always was - teach the juniors what good code looks like, and how to write it. Over time, they will learn to clean up the LLM’s messes on their own, improving both jobs.
> and refuse to clean their mess
You can should speak up when tasks are poorly defined, underestimated, or miscommunicated.
Try to flat out “refuse” assigned work and you’ll be swept away in the next round of layoffs, replaced by someone who knows how to communicate and behave diplomatically.
ramraj07 went on to clarify that they were advocating for putting the onus for cleanup back on mess generators.
They clearly were not advocating for flat out refusing.
Just reply with this to every AI programming task: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/18/code-proven-to-work/
It's just plain unprofessional to just YOLO shit with AI and force actual humans to read to code even if the "author" hasn't read it.
Also API design etc. should be automatically checked by tooling and CI builds, and thus PR merges, should be denied until the checks pass.
> It was a slog, and it also made me look bad because it took me forever compared to the team who originally churned it out almost instantly.
The hell you are playing hero for? Delegate the choice to manager: ruin the codebase or allocate two weeks for clean-up - their choice. If the magical AI team claim they can do integration faster - let them.
IME one thing that makes this choice a very difficult one is oncall responsibilities. The thing that incentivizes code owners to keep their house in order is that their oncall experience will be a lot better. And you're the only one who is incentivized to think this way. Management certainly doesn't care. So by delegating the choice to management you're signing up for a whole bunch of extra work in the form of sleepless oncall shifts.
If someone is making the kind of mistakes that cause oncall issues to increase, put that person on call. It doesn't matter if they can't do anything, call them every time they cause someone else to be paged.
IME too many don't care about on call unless they are personally affected.
2 replies →
> did not obey the API design of the main project
If they're handing you broken code call them out on it. Say this doesn't do what it says it does, did you want me to create a story for redoing all this work?
I've heard of human engineers who are like that. "10x", but it doesn't actually work with the environment it needs to work in. But they sure got it to "feature complete" fast. The problem is, that's a long way from "actually done".
> At work, the devs up the chain now do everything with AI – not just coding – then task me with cleaning it up.
This has to be the most thankless job for the near future. It's hard and you get about as much credit as the worker who cleans up the job site after the contractors are done, even though you're actually fixing structural defects.
And god forbid you introduce a regression bug cleaning up some horrible redundant spaghetti code.
Near future being the key term here imo. The entire task I mentioned was not an engineering problem, but a communication issue. The two project owners could have just talked to each other about the design, then coded it correctly in the first pass, obviating the need for the code janitor. Once orgs adapt to this new workflow, they’ll replace the code janitors with much cheaper Claude credits.
Lol you may be on to something there.. 'a code janitor'.
Thst is definitely one tell, the hand rolled input parsing or error handling that people would never have done at their own discretion. The bigger issue is that we already do the error checking and parsing at the different points of abstraction where it makes the most sense. So it's bespoke, and redundant.
That is on the people using the AI and not cleaning up/thinking about it at all.
We’ve had this too and made a change to our code review guidelines to mention rejection if code is clearly just ai slop. We’ve let like four contractors go so far over it. Like ya they get work done fast but then when it comes to making it production ready they’re completely incapable. Last time we just merged it anyways to hit a budget it set everyone back and we’re still cleaning up the mess.
I think you need coding style guide files in each repo, including preferred patterns & code examples. Then you will see less and less of that.
All that cleanup can be done with AI and then you can add guidance to the codebase so that the next LLM will do a better job at conforming.