The code AI writes, humans can't review
The faster you can ship, the less anyone understands what shipped. A note on the productivity paradox.
If you came from the thread
The faster you can write code with AI, the less anyone can read it. A note on the productivity paradox.
The issue is often exposure frequency and friction, not only talent or motivation.
Instead of one heroic session, make words return in small repeatable moments.
Use repeated exposure as a small passive loop before the next real study session.
PRs got bigger
You ask the AI to fix one bug; it returns a 500-line diff. It works. Tests pass. But nobody on the reviewing side can really follow what's happening anymore.
More 'LGTM' without reading
Approving without reading becomes the norm. The code gets written, but no one on the team holds the whole picture in their head.
Future-you can't read it either
When you come back to fix something AI wrote, you can't read your own diff. You end up asking the AI to explain it. You've given up ownership of understanding.
73%
Speed of writing goes up dramatically with AI assist. Self-reported codebase comprehension drops, six months in, for 73% of small teams I've talked to.
Code is read ten times more often than it's written. We're paying for the writer's efficiency with the reader's cognitive load.
How you use AI decides the outcome
The 'write it all' workflow
One big prompt, one big diff, approve when tests pass. The model does the thinking; your understanding doesn't grow.
The 'write it together' workflow
Have the model produce small chunks (tens of lines). Read each one, understand it, then ask for the next. You lose speed, but you keep ownership of comprehension.
1/3
Cutting speed by a third in exchange for keeping ownership of understanding. That's the trade I've landed on, for now.
More essays on this kind of thing
Particles and Waves is where I publish what I've learned wrestling with AI tools as an indie developer — on the blog, and in short Kindle books.