When AI Becomes a Crutch, Not a Tool

2025/08/21 15:04

The usage of AI, especially in the software industry, has increased a lot lately, but everything has a downside — and that, is, excess. Excess of anything is bad, and that includes the use of AI. With that in mind, in this post, I explore the downsides of vibe coding and how to balance it.

Recently, Zen van Riel - a senior software engineer at GitHub, shared a linkedin post about the dark side of vibe coding. He describes a developer constantly trying to fix "simple things" using an AI model but, unfortunately, the AI model fails to do so every time. It's not only a waste of time, but a waste of money (credits) as well. Zen wonderfully describes this through an analogy of fast food (hence, the title of this post).

\

In my opinion, that's a brilliant analogy because it talks about balance. Let me draw some parallels between fast food and vibe coding.

Vibe Coding & Fast Food

1. Instant Gratification

When you send a prompt and see output in a matter of seconds, you feel good. It gives you a dopamine hit, a sense of accomplishment, but it's only a matter of time when it all fades away.

When the AI model starts making mistakes and no matter which prompt you give, it still doesn't work, that's when you start feeling I could have done it myself.

It starts becoming messy if you look at the bigger picture.

2. Opinionated Ingredients

If you don't know what you are building, AI model can use whatever it thinks is good to build your application and sometimes it's not the best for your application and use case. And, it can be very hard to refactor later.

For you to be able to give enough context of what you are building and why, you need to be aware of the available tools and techniques needed to make that happen.

3. Lacks Nutritional Value

Once you get the taste of it, you stop asking the "why"/"how" question. Questioning what the AI model does almost feels like a second thought. And you know what it does? It drains your ability to learn and grasp new things.

That's the reason I never recommend beginners to rely solely on AI tools for coding/programming. Always questions things and ask the model why it did what it did.

4. Looks Good on the Outside

AI tools might get you the exact thing you want, but if you look closely at the code, (if you have decent knowledge about programming) you start seeing inconsistencies and tech debt.

5. Forms Bad Habit in the Long Term

If you only vibe code, you never get to focus on the grilling part of programming, which is to sit patiently and think about the problem at hand. You never really learn how to dissect a problem and solve it incrementally.

Some of the best solutions to software engineering problems I had occurred to me when I was asleep, walking or just wandering around with an open mind. Sometimes, all it takes is to take a step back and relax.

Correct Usage of AI tools for Coding

  • Don't solely rely on AI of you are a beginner. Read in-depth articles, watch YouTube videos explaining how stuff really works and practice, build something. Building something on your own is key and it will get you out of tutorial hell.
  • Familiarize yourself with what you are building and why. It's easy to get lost in whatever the AI model generates, so it's necessary to have decent knowledge about technologies you want to use to build your project.
  • Use AI model in an incremental way. Prompt the AI model to do small changes instead of giving it a complex task. Break down the problem yourself, or even better, prompt the AI model to generate a plan first, study the plan, and then tell it to implement. It will help you learn and break down the problem.
  • Ask the AI model why it did what it did. AI models are great at explaining things, so use it to your own advantage.

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Economist Who Predicted Bitcoin Would Go To $100 Before $100,000 Returns

Economist Who Predicted Bitcoin Would Go To $100 Before $100,000 Returns

Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, who declared in 2018 that Bitcoin was more likely to crash to $100 than rally to $100,000, has returned. He indirectly admitted he was wrong and outlined reasons why his prediction fell through.  Harvard Economist Breaks Silence On Missed Bitcoin Prediction In an X post, Rogoff identified himself as the Harvard economist who said that Bitcoin was more likely to be worth $100 than $100,000. He then went on to comment on what he missed when he made this prediction. First, the economist said that he was far too optimistic about the U.S. coming to its senses about sensible crypto regulation.  Related Reading: Crypto Founder Predicts The Collapse Of Bitcoin In This Timeframe Rogoff, who was the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), indicated that the Donald Trump administration has gone about Bitcoin and crypto regulation in the wrong way. He questioned why policymakers would want to facilitate tax evasion and illegal activities, likely in reference to regulations such as the GENIUS Act, which have provided regulatory clarity.  It is worth mentioning that one of the reasons the Harvard economist had predicted that Bitcoin was more likely to go to $100 was based on his belief that government regulation would trigger lower prices. He had made this prediction when BTC was trading at around $11,000. Rogoff claimed back then that the flagship crypto needed global regulation to crack down on its use for money laundering.  The former IMF chief believed that if this regulation took away the possibility of money laundering and tax evasion, then Bitcoin’s actual use cases for transactions were very small. As such, he was banking on BTC lacking any demand, which would drive its price lower rather than higher.  However, that hasn’t been the case as government regulation has only boosted Bitcoin’s demand. The flagship crypto rallied to $100,000, a price level Rogoff said it won’t reach, for the first time last year following Donald Trump’s victory. Meanwhile, BTC has reached new highs on the back of regulatory clarity, including its rally to a previous all-time high (ATH) just before the passage of the GENIUS Act last month.  Further Reasons For The Missed Prediction The Harvard economist also stated that he did not appreciate how Bitcoin would compete with fiat currencies to serve as the transaction medium of choice in the $20 trillion global underground economy. He further remarked that this demand puts a floor on its price.  Related Reading: Two Scenarios Map Out Bitcoin Price Crash After Recovery In addition to being a transaction medium of choice, BTC has also gained a reputation as a store of value, which has created demand for it among traditional finance (TradFi) investors. These investors have gained exposure to Bitcoin mainly through the ETFs. Interestingly, Harvard recently revealed a $117 million stake in BlackRock’s BTC ETF.  Lastly, Rogoff said that he did not anticipate a situation where regulators, especially the regulator in chief, would be able to brazenly hold hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in crypto without consequence, considering the “blatant conflict of interest.”  At the time of writing, the Bitcoin price is trading at around $113,600, up in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap. Featured image from Pixabay, chart from Tradingview.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/08/21 20:00
Share