AI tools in software development are marketed as pure upside.
Faster coding.
Higher productivity.
Lower effort.
Smaller teams.
All of that is par...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
This resonates, especially the idea that the cost doesn’t disappear — it just moves.
What I’ve felt most in practice is that AI didn’t really change what we’re responsible for, it changed when we pay the price. The thinking still has to happen, but it gets deferred. And deferred thinking is always more expensive, because now it happens under pressure instead of by design.
The point about ownership really landed. Once code becomes “acceptable by default,” responsibility gets fuzzy. Nobody wrote bad code, but nobody fully owns the reasoning behind it either. That’s a dangerous place for production systems, because failure demands clear mental models, not plausible explanations.
I also like how you frame evaluation debt as the next wave of technical debt. That feels very real. We’re getting good at shipping behavior quickly, but not nearly as good at noticing when that behavior drifts. Correctness alone doesn’t capture that anymore, and most teams haven’t adjusted their metrics or review processes to reflect it.
One thing I’d add is that AI tools compress the feedback loop for writing but stretch the loop for understanding. Systems feel productive right up until the moment you have to reason about them as a whole. That gap is where fragility accumulates.
This isn’t an anti-AI argument at all — it’s a systems argument. Tools don’t just add speed, they reshape workflows and incentives. If teams don’t consciously rebalance around that, the debt stays invisible until it’s unavoidable.
Strong post. This is the kind of thing senior engineers sense early but struggle to articulate — you put words to it really well.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and deeply reasoned response. You’ve captured the shift perfectly: the cost doesn’t disappear, it moves, and when thinking is deferred, it usually returns under pressure rather than by design.
Your point about ownership is especially important. When code becomes “acceptable by default,” responsibility blurs, and that’s exactly when systems become fragile. In failure modes, we don’t need plausible explanations, we need clear mental models, and those only come from deliberate reasoning upfront.
I also agree strongly with your framing of evaluation debt as the next wave of technical debt. Shipping behavior quickly is getting easier; noticing drift, misalignment, or slow degradation is not. Most teams haven’t yet adapted their metrics, reviews, or feedback loops to account for that reality.
The insight about AI compressing the feedback loop for writing while stretching it for understanding is particularly sharp. That gap is precisely where hidden complexity and fragility accumulate.
As you said, this isn’t an anti-AI argument, it’s a systems argument. Tools reshape incentives and workflows, and unless teams rebalance intentionally, the debt just goes underground. I really appreciate you taking the time to articulate this so clearly.
Nicely written, loved it!
Thank you.
I think it is important to understand the code you have in your codebase even if it is developed by AI. Otherwise, the codebase will become harder to manage.
Absolutely agree. If developers don’t understand the code in their own codebase, regardless of whether it was written by AI or by a human, it quickly becomes fragile and hard to maintain. Understanding is what enables debugging, refactoring, and safe evolution over time. AI can help generate and explore solutions, but ownership still means knowing what’s running in production.
Now users don't want speed only, they want great user experience as well.
That line about acceptable code being written faster than understanding really hits.
AI boosts velocity, but without clear ownership and intent, it just turns thinking into invisible debt.
Thank you for highlighting that. Speed without ownership often just shifts the cost into invisible debt. When understanding and intent don’t keep pace with velocity, systems become harder to reason about and more fragile over time. I’m glad that point resonated with you.