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.
We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share.
Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is “in 10 years we’ll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently.” In their roadmap, there won’t be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI.
What’s most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
That’s why they’re all-in on authoritarianism.
Yep, and now you know why all the tech companies suddenly became VERY politically active. This future isn’t compatible with democracy. Once these companies no longer provide employment their benefit to society becomes a big fat question mark.
Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive.
And all they’ll hear is “not failure, metrics great, ship faster, productive” and go against your advice because who cares about three months later, that’s next quarter, line must go up now. I also found this bit funny:
I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me… I was proud of what I’d created.
Well you didn’t create it, you said so yourself, not sure why you’d be proud, it’s almost like the conclusion should’ve been blindingly obvious right there.
So there’s actual developers who could tell you from the start that LLMs are useless for coding, and then there’s this moron & similar people who first have to fuck up an ecosystem before believing the obvious. Thanks fuckhead for driving RAM prices through the ceiling… And for wasting energy and water.
I can least kinda appreciate this guy’s approach. If we assume that AI is a magic bullet, then it’s not crazy to assume we, the existing programmers, would resist it just to save our own jobs. Or we’d complain because it doesn’t do things our way, but we’re the old way and this is the new way. So maybe we’re just being whiny and can be ignored.
So he tested it to see for himself, and what he found was that he agreed with us, that it’s not worth it.
Ignoring experts is annoying, but doing some of your own science and getting first-hand experience isn’t always a bad idea.
100% this. The guy was literally a consultant and a developer. It’d just be bad business for him to outright dismiss AI without having actual hands on experience with said product. Clients want that type of experience and knowledge when paying a business to give them advice and develop a product for them.
Except that outright dismissing snake oil would not at all be bad business. Calling a turd a diamond neither makes it sparkle, nor does it get rid of the stink.
And not only did he see for himself, he wrote up and published his results.
Great article, brave and correct. Good luck getting the same leaders who blindly believe in a magical trend for this or next quarters numbers; they don’t care about things a year away let alone 10.
I work in HR and was stuck by the parallel between management jobs being gutted by major corps starting in the 80s and 90s during “downsizing” who either never replaced them or offshore them. They had the Big 4 telling them it was the future of business. Know who is now providing consultation to them on why they have poor ops, processes, high turnover, etc? Take $ on the way in, and the way out. AI is just the next in long line of smart people pretending they know your business while you abdicate knowing your business or employees.
Hope leaders can be a bit braver and wiser this go 'round so we don’t get to a cliffs edge in software.
Tbh I think the true leaders are high on coke.
