Post #38842

2025-12-07 17:07 UTC

What’s interesting is what he found out. From the article: 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.

Replies (3)

@very_well_lost@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 18:32

Typical C-suite. It takes them three months to come to the same conclusion that would be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain: if you build something that no one understands, you’ll end up with something impossible to maintain.

Open ##39124
@valentine@flickering.style 2025-12-08 03:43

[@AutistoMephisto](https://lemmy.world/u/AutistoMephisto) [@just\_another\_person](https://lemmy.world/u/just_another_person) This, to me, is the most insidious effect of AI. Whether it's as complex as code or as simple as fact-checking a search result. People lose confidence in their judgment, and therefore their agency is eroded.

Open ##1613223
@randomgeek@masto.hackers.town 2025-12-08 02:14

[@AutistoMephisto](https://lemmy.world/u/AutistoMephisto) [@just\_another\_person](https://lemmy.world/u/just_another_person) \> "Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built." gratz, gang, you turned everything into Perl. well \*(dusts off `perldoc`)\* I'll be ready

Open ##1613224