I’ll probably regret writing this. At the very least, I’ll cringe reading it in a few months. But here we are.

Lately, we’ve been getting a wave of client requests asking us to evaluate software they built using AI tools. These aren’t engineers. These are business folks using increasingly powerful AI products to try and build functioning systems. And to be completely honest, the results are both impressive and a bit alarming.

People are building whole applications on their own. Backends, frontends, user interfaces, even some database logic. Sometimes they even look good. These are smart people who don’t know how to code but have managed to produce working systems.

The problems show up immediately when we start reviewing the internals. The code is usually a mess. In many cases, it would be extremely difficult to maintain or extend. And if you need to move that code from the platform it was created in to a cloud provider like AWS, you’re going to hit a wall. These platforms wrap everything in layers of scaffolding that make portability a nightmare.

Security is worse. We’ve found plaintext credentials scattered across files. We’ve seen SQL injection vulnerabilities that shouldn’t even be possible in modern frameworks. We’ve seen structural issues that would get flagged in a freshman CS class.

Despite all that, what people are creating are legitimate prototypes. They’re functional. They run. But when you’ve put a few weeks into building something, and you show it to a software engineer, it’s hard to hear that your shiny new thing needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

I want to be clear. I am not anti-AI. Almost everyone at my company uses AI tools every day. We use Copilot, Cursor, ChatGPT, Claude, and more. We build out frontends with tools like v0 and Lovable. These tools have changed how we work.

Some of our engineers report productivity improvements of 30 to 40 percent. That’s not a rounding error. That is a major shift. But they are still writing the code. They are reviewing it. They are checking for performance, clarity, security, and maintainability. They are not letting the tools decide architecture. They are using AI like they use autocomplete or linters, but with more power behind it.

This is also where expectations need to be adjusted. These systems will not save you 90 percent on development. They will not let you skip engineering altogether. But if they save you 30 percent, that’s a real gain. Imagine you’re building a house. The general contractor says it’s going to be $500,000. You tell them you already did the blueprints, filled out all the permits, and figured out the site plan using some AI tools. If they came back and said, “Alright, I’ll knock 30 percent off,” that would be the best deal of your life. That’s where we are today with AI-generated software. A solid start. A real value. Not a replacement.

For me personally, AI has made it fun to write code again. I haven’t been a working programmer in over a decade, and most modern toolchains are enough to scare me off. Now, with the right assistance, I can build something without getting stuck on Docker configs and dependency mismatches. That’s a big deal.

In the startup world, AI-first development is everywhere. Most of the current Y Combinator batch is using AI tools to write the bulk of their code. But those teams are highly technical. These are engineers using better tools, not tools replacing engineers.

So for non-developers using AI to build products, here are three things you should keep in mind:

  1. These tools are great for building prototypes. If you build something yourself, you will understand it better and will be a better partner to your engineering team. That matters.
  2. These tools can help you build usable frontend components. You probably won’t want to go live with them, but they can get you close enough to work with a real development team.
  3. If your app is small, non-critical, doesn’t store sensitive data, and lives entirely in its native platform, you can probably keep it running. That’s fine for internal use or personal projects.

One day, you’ll be able to speak an app into existence and deploy it with a voice command. It will be fast, secure, and beautiful. But today, you still need an experienced software engineer to check your work before you send real data through it. That’s just where we are right now.

The upside is huge. We can now get experts from other domains to build working prototypes and test ideas without needing an engineering team on day one. That’s powerful. But if your product is going to handle sensitive data or support real users, bring in someone who knows what they’re doing. Not because the AI is bad. Because the stakes are high.

Previous ArticleNext Article
I help companies turn their technical ideas into reality.

CEO @Sourcetoad and @OnDeck

Founder of Thankscrate and Data and Sons

Author of Herding Cats and Coders

Fan of judo, squash, whiskey, aggressive inline, and temperamental British sports cars.

Leave a Reply

The Internet Doesn’t Have Enough Love In It (And How We Can Fix It Easily)

I’ve been thinking about all the wrong things when it comes to AI writing code.

Everyone else seems to be too. Job displacement. Security vulnerabilities. The ten-times-faster developer who now bills the same and delivers four times as much. These are real conversations worth having, just not the one I want to have right now.

The one I want to have is about teaching a six-year-old multiplication.

Here’s what I mean. Imagine you’ve been sitting with your kid every night for two weeks trying to explain multiplication. You’ve tried drawing rows of dots. You’ve tried songs (don’t judge me). You’ve tried the “just think of it as groups of things” approach that works for literally every other math concept but, mysteriously, not for your kid. Then one night, something clicks. You found the explanation, YOUR explanation, the one that worked for your actual kid with your actual kid’s brain, and it finally, beautifully, clicks.

Now imagine you could spend a Saturday morning turning that into a small web app. Not a startup. Not a SaaS platform. No login. No backend. No one’s going to hack it (there’s nothing to hack). Just a little thing that walks through multiplication the exact way you figured out it works, step by step, the way you’d explain it. You send it to the WhatsApp group for your kid’s class. Some of those other parents, also quietly losing their minds over multiplication, try it. And it helps.

You just made the world a tiny bit better. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

Claude Code exists now, and a handful of other tools like it, and the reason I think this matters isn’t productivity. It’s access. The barrier between “I have an idea for something that could help people” and “I have a thing that helps people” used to require knowing how to code, or hiring someone who does, or talking a developer friend into your project over enough beers that their guilt exceeded their better judgment. Now it’s a Saturday morning and a good description of what you want to build.

The internet already has beautiful things in it that were built out of love. Free coding education for kids. Open-source video editors. Someone’s incredibly detailed home-brewing app with no monetization plan whatsoever. Artists making interactive experiences because they wanted to see if they could. These things exist because someone cared more about making the thing than making money from the thing. I think that ratio is about to shift dramatically in favor of the people who just want to make something good.

I’m not saying we should all stop paying for Salesforce (we should probably keep paying for Salesforce, there’s a reason that thing costs what it costs). I’m saying the category of software that was previously not worth building because it wasn’t commercial enough to justify the cost, that category just got a lot more interesting.

What’s in that category? Things like:

  • An app that helps beginning judo students understand the concepts behind a throw, not just the mechanics, because judo is where I learned confidence and discipline and I want other kids to find that
  • A private family memory vault (not Instagram, not Facebook, not anything with an algorithm deciding what matters), just a place where the people who love my son can send photos and stories somewhere safe, for him to open when he’s older (Maybe I’ll turn this into something?)
  • A system that reminds companies to send their employees gifts on the days that actually matter to them, because I know from running a company that it fills the cup of the person giving just as much as the person receiving (Thankscrate, if you’re curious, and yes, that one is turning into something real, but that is genuinely not why I built it)

None of those were commercial ideas first. They were just things I cared about.

I think the most interesting software that gets built in the next few years won’t come from developers moving faster. It’ll come from people who previously had no path from “I care about this” to “I built something about this,” and now they do. Parents. Coaches. Teachers. The person in your office who could explain that one complicated process better than anyone and has always secretly wanted to turn it into something.

The stakes are low. The bar to launch is low. The cost is low. The only thing required is that you actually give a damn about what you’re building.

So… What do you give a damn about?

Go build it. I still sometimes have to count on my fingers, but I’m told the app helps.