CTO AI Corner: if AI produces bad code, it's your own fault

I'm a bit tired of hearing people bash AI because it didn't produce something they liked. Most of these critics have used AI-assisted development a handful of times, decided it was useless, and are now on a mission to warn the world that AI will make codebases unmaintainable, insecure, and riddled with bugs. But maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't the tool.

People seem to think that if they can code, they can simply drop AI into the process and instantly get flawless results. That's like knowing how to ride a bike and assuming you can skip driving school. There's a learning curve, and you actually have to climb it.

The usual complaints about AI unpacked

‍"AI made huge changes to my code and did things I didn't ask for."
‍What
did you actually ask it to do? Prompting well is a skill. Vague instructions usually get vague results.

"I don't like the coding style AI uses."
‍Did
you tell it what style you want? You can set personal or project-wide instructions so it produces code and documentation in your preferred style.

"AI makes a lot of bugs."
‍And
you never do? That's why we test. Some bugs happen because the AI misunderstood your prompt. Others because it missed a corner case. Test properly and automate tests to prevent regression.

"AI makes the codebase unmaintainable."
‍Humans
do that all the time as well. You can ask AI to refactor when you spot duplication or technical debt. Don't just complain, have it fix the mess.

"AI doesn't understand our codebase."
‍If
it takes a human months to understand your system, why would AI instantly get it? Either give it the same onboarding you'd give a new dev (docs, context) or make your codebase more approachable for both humans and AI.

August 11, 2025
ai-corner
Authors
Tomi Leppälahti
CAIO & CTO
Share

Thinking about AI issues? Leave a message and let's explore together how and where to use AI.

Thank you for your message! We will be in touch soon.
Whoops! Something went wrong with the form submission.