The AI coding dilemma
Automating coding with AI seem like a breakthrough. You might ask why pay more for human work when AI can do it at a lower cost. However, this introduces a fundamental tension: as coding becomes more automated, human expertise becomes even more critical, to validate outputs, detect errors, and guide systems in high-stakes environments. Can AI truly optimize for both speed and skill, or do these productivity gains come at the cost of deep expertise (Anthropic, 2026)?
AI turns weeks of coding into minutes
Over eight decades, programming has repeatedly reinvented itself. The latest shift may be the most unusual: building software is becoming a dialogue, a continuous exchange between developers and their AI agents. Part of the difference comes down to perspective. In creative fields, large language models can feel like they replace the most human aspects and leave only routine tasks behind. In coding, AI handles the grunt work and allows humans to concentrate on higher-level conceptual problem-solving.
Historically, coding has often been tedious. In practice, delivering software has been slow and frustrating: you write a small function, only to encounter a tiny typo or a missing colon that brings everything to a halt. As systems expand to dozens or even thousands of interacting functions, you can spend days searching for the subtle mistake that causes the entire process to stop. Sometimes it is caused by a nearby change in the office.
Not long ago, shipping software meant days bent over a keyboard, sweating edge cases and double‑checking every detail to avoid mistakes. Then AI arrived, and the workload changed. As models got better at writing code, engineers delegated more to them. Today, when a client needs a new feature, an agent can draft it in roughly 30 minutes. The work that once took a human the better part of a day.
Nowadays, a coder’s role resembles an architect’s more than a builder’s. With AI, developers design the system and how components fit together, while agents generate working code fast enough to allow rapid iteration: try, test, keep what works, discard what doesn’t.
AI excels at exploring unfamiliar parts of a codebase and helps engineers work productively in languages they know little about. Now, much of coding is automated, making productivity gains of 10, 20, or even 100 times possible (The New York Times Magazine, 2026).
Anthropic’s research
In software development, it’s still uncertain whether cognitive offloading thinking to AI slows down skill development or weakens developers’ understanding of the systems they build. To study this, Anthropic recruited 52 software engineers, mostly juniors who had been using Python at least weekly for over a year. Participants were at least somewhat familiar with AI coding assistants but had no prior experience with Trio, the Python library used in the tasks.
On average, participants using AI finished roughly two minutes sooner, but this time difference wasn’t statistically meaningful. The AI group scored about 50% on the quiz, while the hand-coding group averaged 67%, nearly a two-letter-grade advantage. The biggest performance difference appeared on debugging questions, indicating that recognizing when code is wrong and understanding why it fails may be especially at risk when AI use interferes with genuine coding skill development.
In the trial, Anthropic measured how quickly developers picked up a new skill with and without AI assistance, and whether using AI reduced their understanding of the code they produced. Crucially, AI use did not automatically lead to poorer outcomes. The impact depended on how developers used it. The study supports the idea that deliberate cognitive effort, even when using AI, is vital for mastering new skills. This has implications for how individuals choose to work with AI and which tools they adopt. Those who learned the most used AI not only to generate code but also to deepen their understanding. They asked follow‑up questions, requested explanations, and posed conceptual questions while still coding on their own. Participants who combined code and explanation requests spent more time reading and processing explanations but achieved better comprehension. Simply “using AI” isn’t one behavior. The way developers engage with AI while trying to be efficient strongly shapes how much they actually learn.
Anthropic ran another randomized controlled trial with software engineers, examining how AI affects learning and comprehension on coding tasks. Using a privacy-preserving analytics approach, they reviewed 100,000 Claude.ai conversations across the Free, Pro, and Max tiers to estimate how much Claude reduces task length and time to completion.
The median conversation saw an estimated 84% reduction in time, though results vary widely by task and category. At the extreme, users finish curriculum design work that Claude estimates would take 4.5 hours in only 11 minutes. People also report using AI to cut the time needed for invoices, memos, and similar documents by 87%.
Research indicates that AI can help people complete parts of their work much faster. Extrapolating these results to the economy, current AI models could increase annual US labor productivity growth by 1.8% over the next decade. The Anthropic observational study found that some tasks accelerate by up to 80%. However, this raises an important question. What trade-offs come with that productivity boost (Anthropic, 2026/2025)?
The limits of AI accuracy
Expecting an AI agent to build an entire product at once is wishful thinking. It might generate 5,000 lines of code, but the first test often fails. Human expertise remains crucial for structuring large codebases, designing for reliability, and spotting when the agent is careless.
AI isn’t flawless. When it skips critical checks like running tests, it needs a firm nudge to run the full suite. To prevent repeat issues, we add clear guardrails to its prompt file, instructions agents must follow before starting work (The New York Times Magazine, 2026).
When evaluating AI code generation, developers start with accuracy: does the code actually run? A common proxy is the pass rate on hidden tests, which checks whether the model follows instructions instead of recalling examples. By 2025, leading models typically achieve about 70%–82% across mainstream languages like Python, JavaScript, Go, TypeScript, and Java. Niche, well‑curated training often enables specialised models to outperform them in specific languages (Zencoder, 2025).
The harsh reality is that code generated by AI tends to be inefficient. It often over-prepares resources, over-complicates, duplicates functionalities, and overlooks the subtle optimization insights that seasoned engineers acquire over years of experience. While the output may be considered ‘correct’ in a narrow sense of being functional, does it genuinely meet service-level agreements? Does it effectively manage edge cases, handle upgrades, and remain within budget constraints (InfoWorld, 2026). Not every AI suggestion is essential. Embracing simplicity often proves more strategic and effective. Focus on implementing features that add true value to achieve clearer, more manageable outcomes (Toward Data Science, 2026).
Conventional technical debt is recognizable to its creators. They remember why they took shortcuts, the assumptions involved, and what must change to fix it. AI-generated systems create untraceable debt, lacking shared memory, consistent style, and coherent rationale throughout the codebase.
When AI-generated code is inefficient, it doesn’t just operate more slowly. It runs more often, scales inconsistently, and fails in unexpected ways that are costly to diagnose (InfoWorld, 2026).
AI takes over the grunt work, humans solve the hard problems
If AI can produce high‑quality code faster than most people can write it, what, exactly, is the developer’s role?
AI is a tool, not a replacement. The job isn’t just writing code anymore. Across the development lifecycle, humans and AI work in a loop. Humans write the prompt, the AI generates code, humans review it, and then refine the prompt with feedback. This is the recommended workflow. In this loop, humans remain the final arbiters. An AI agent may see requirements, architecture, code, and tests, but only people judge the wider context in user expectations, business priorities, cost and latency, reliability, maintainability, and explainability. AI works quickly, but people are needed to make sure decisions are sound. Speed does not replace the need for careful judgment. Humans hold the final responsibility: weigh trade‑offs, ensure maintainability, and decide when it’s production‑ready.
Released in March 2025, the Multi-Agent Systems Failure Taxonomy (MAST) study analyzed 1,642 execution traces from seven open-source frameworks. It reported failure rates from 41% to 86.7%, finding coordination breakdowns the most common issue, comprising 36.9% of failures.
Developers now need to partner effectively with AI coding agents. AI generates code quickly and confidently, but slight ambiguity in a prompt can mislead it. Speed does not ensure correctness. Humans should frame instructions and prompts clearly and specifically so the system reliably delivers the intended result. They should step in at defined points throughout the development lifecycle. The team should verify AI‑generated code to ensure it is reliable, maintainable, and ready for production (Toward Data Science, 2026).
Conclusion
The statement “If something seems too good to be true, it probably is” serves as a cautionary principle. This does not suggest that AI coding is ineffective; instead, it emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between automation and replacement in enterprises. AI is effective at automating tasks but does not assume responsibility for outcomes and cannot provide human accountability.
Successful enterprises are likely to be those that integrate developers with AI tools, invest in best practices for their platforms, and focus on measurable quality, maintainability, and cost-effectiveness. AI can be viewed as a tool designed to enhance workforce capabilities rather than as a substitute for human personnel (InfoWorld, 2026).
Partner with our experts to make your next project a success!
Don’t rely on AI alone!
