AI Development: How Replacing Developers With AI is Going Horribly Wrong

The hype cycle is deafening. LinkedIn feeds are flooded with influencers claiming they built a "SaaS in 30 minutes" using nothing but Cursor and Claude. Executives are looking at their burn rates and wondering, "Do we really need this many senior engineers if AI can write code?"

I’ve seen this play out with clients recently, and the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, attempting to replace developers with AI is leading to some of the most catastrophic technical debt I have ever witnessed in my career.

As a Generative AI developer and Shopify expert, I use these tools every single day. They are incredible. But treating them as autonomous employees rather than power tools is a fundamental misunderstanding of what software engineering actually is.

The "90% Done" Illusion

The biggest trap in AI development is the speed of the first draft. You ask an LLM to "Build a Next.js dashboard with a Stripe integration," and 30 seconds later, you have code. It looks perfect. The components render. The UI is clean.

Management sees this and thinks the project is 90% complete. In reality, it is maybe 10% complete.

AI creates code that works in isolation (the "happy path") but often fails spectacularly in the real world. It rarely accounts for:

• Edge cases: What happens when the API rate limit is hit?
• State management: How does this react hook interact with the global store during a hydration error?
• Security: Is that webhook verification actually validating the signature, or just checking if the header exists?

When you replace developers with AI, you don't get a finished product faster. You get a prototype that falls apart the moment real users touch it, requiring expensive seniors to come in and untangle the mess.

Spaghetti Code at Warp Speed

Junior developers sometimes write spaghetti code—code that is tangled, hard to follow, and difficult to maintain. AI writes spaghetti code, too, but it does it at the speed of light.

I recently audited a codebase for a startup that tried to build their MVP exclusively with AI prompts. The result was terrifying. Every file used a slightly different pattern. Some components used Tailwind, others used CSS modules. The database schema had circular dependencies that made scaling impossible.

Because an AI lacks a holistic memory of the entire project's architectural constraints over time (despite growing context windows), it solves problem A without realizing it just broke constraint B.

The "Senior Engineer" Gap

The hardest part of coding isn't syntax; it's decision-making.

• "Should we use a relational database or NoSQL for this specific data shape?"
• "Is this third-party library maintained, or will it break our build in six months?"
• "How do we handle idempotency in our payment webhooks?"

LLMs are terrible at these architectural decisions because they are trained on the average of the internet. They will suggest the most popular solution, not necessarily the correct one for your specific constraints. Without a skilled human engineer to validate these choices, you are building a skyscraper on a foundation of sand.

The Security Minefield

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of replacing developers is security. AI will happily hallucinate secure-looking code that is actually vulnerable.

I’ve seen AI generate SQL queries open to injection, React components vulnerable to XSS, and authentication flows that bypass standard checks—all while commenting the code as "Secure implementation."

A non-technical founder or a junior dev relying entirely on AI won't spot these vulnerabilities until data is breached.

The Correct Approach: Augmentation, Not Replacement

Does this mean we shouldn't use AI? Absolutely not. I use AI to:

1. Scaffold boilerplate: Generating types, basic CRUD endpoints, and unit tests.
2. Explain legacy code: "What is this specific regex doing?"
3. Debug: "Here is the error trace, what are the likely causes?"

This is AI-Augmented Development. It allows one senior engineer to do the work of three. It increases leverage, not headcount reduction.

The companies winning right now aren't the ones firing their dev teams. They are the ones equipping their best engineers with the best AI tools, allowing them to focus on high-level architecture and user experience while the AI handles the rote typing.

Conclusion

If you think AI is expensive, try fixing a production outage caused by hallucinated code that no one understands.

Technology is an investment. If you want a robust, scalable e-commerce platform or a custom web app, you need humans who understand the machine, not just a machine that pretends to be human.