NOW LET US – AI RAG SaaS Studio TP.HCM
NOW LET US
Digital Product Studio
Back to news
DEV-TOOLS...1 min read

When I reject AI code even if it works

Share
NOW LET US Article – When I reject AI code even if it works

With AI making implementation faster, the real bottleneck shifts to code review. This article explores why experienced developers still reject AI-generated code even when it works, emphasizing the irreplaceable role of human oversight.

With implementation getting faster and faster, the real bottleneck moves to reviewing the volume of code generated by AI. I’m not even talking about your coworkers’ (and their agents’) PRs, but your own git diff after your coding agent has finished its job.

Even when I follow good practices – like starting with the plan mode, dividing big tasks into phases, and shipping small changes – I still feel cognitive overload when reviewing something I haven’t actually thought through myself.

Before coding agents, when given a task, I would explore the codebase, think of different solutions, experiment, and only then implement. That could take days of consolidating all that context. When I finally submitted that PR, confidence was higher, and explaining each of my changes to my coworkers was easier.

I have to admit that with AI, completing big tasks still takes me days. More often than not, I reject all changes made by AI and start over. The difference between the first session and the second is not the LLM model, but the person behind the screen. With more time to consolidate the problem I’m trying to solve, I can drive the agent to a better solution instead of being driven by it.

More and more, I reject AI code for the same reasons:

  • I reject AI code when I can’t explain the approach in my own words.
  • I reject AI code when the diff is bigger than the problem.
  • I reject AI code when it introduces abstractions before proving they’re needed.
  • I reject AI code when it works locally but makes the system harder to reason about.
  • I reject AI code when I’m trusting the output more than my understanding.

It’s not uncommon to see engineers accept AI-generated changes too quickly, and that is why I advocate for required human review in conjunction with AI reviews. The reality is that code that runs and makes the CI green can still be a bad solution, and engineering has always been about implementing adequate, scalable, and extensible solutions.

I’ve been using coding agents for some time, and despite how impressive they are, they still need a great engineer guiding them to great solutions. Yes, coding agents can help you with this task with more than just writing code, but that doesn’t mean they can do it autonomously in a sustainable manner yet.

© 2026 Now Let Us. All rights reserved.

Source: Hacker News

Advertisement
Ad slot ready: 5887729102

More in this category

NOW LET US Related – Epoll vs. io_uring in Linux

dev-tools

Epoll vs. io_uring in Linux

An overview and architectural comparison of epoll and io_uring, the two primary asynchronous I/O queueing systems in Linux, illustrated with practical C examples.

NOW LET US Related – Pre-2022 Books

dev-tools

Pre-2022 Books

The rise of generative AI has sparked a subconscious preference for books published before 2022, where every word represents manual human effort and craftsmanship.

NOW LET US Related – Alice is impatient

dev-tools

Alice is impatient

An exploration of the inspection paradox in system performance, explaining why users experience much higher latency and recovery times than what standard system metrics report.

NOW LET US Related – Unauthorized alert sent to cell phones across Brazil

dev-tools

Unauthorized alert sent to cell phones across Brazil

Brazilian authorities are investigating a suspected hacker attack after an unauthorized emergency alert with a mysterious message was broadcast to mobile devices across several states, forcing the government to temporarily take the warning system offline.

NOW LET US Related – DOS Game "F-15 Strike Eagle II" reversing project needs DOS test pilots

dev-tools

DOS Game "F-15 Strike Eagle II" reversing project needs DOS test pilots

The reverse engineering project for the 1989 DOS game F-15 Strike Eagle II has reached a major milestone, reconstructing all C source code. The developer is now calling for 'test pilots' to help find bugs in the latest playable build.

NOW LET US Related – 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating

dev-tools

16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating

A 16-year-old SanDisk P4 SSD has survived a grueling endurance test, reaching 1 petabyte of writes—25 times its official TBW rating—proving that SSDs can be far more durable than manufacturers claim.

EXPLORE TOPICS

Discover All Categories

Deep dive into the specific technology sectors that matter most to you.