How NOT to use AI when programming

▶

I'm going to raise a few points, without any personal qualms about the author of the post. I'm simply criticizing his idea, as I consider it incorrect based on the following statement:
 

BREAKING NEWS: I built a complete coworking space booking app in less than 15 minutes.

One prompt. No code. No development team.

Just a functional app with integrated payments.

The author comments that, in less than 15 minutes, he generated a complete booking application, with all that this entails. He did this using a single prompt.

This is where the problem begins: instead of creating a prompt with context and details, he used what I call a vague prompt. The correct approach would be, for example, to ask the AI to create the tests first to provide more context, create a stable ecosystem, and prevent the result from changing too much.

However, this author used a single prompt, without prior code, without a development team, and in just 15 minutes (including writing and automatic generation time).

Questionable technical aspects

This is a clear example of what not to do:

• Use of vague prompts.
• Generation of complete applications without real human supervision.
• Lack of code review.

AI should be a copilot, not the pilot. As GitHub Copilot's name suggests, you are the programmer, and AI is merely assisting. It's your responsibility to oversee the code and ensure it's functional, secure, and up-to-date.

AI-generated code can:

• Being outdated.
• Using obsolete libraries or frameworks.
• Presenting incompatibilities and unexpected errors.
• Not following best practices, creating vulnerabilities.

Just because an app "looks pretty" doesn't mean it's functional. Without review, it's like working with a black box: you don't know what's inside.

In this other article, we discuss a development expert's recommendations on how to use AI in programming.

Comparison with templates

This reminds me of when templates used to be used. For example, in Flutter, you can find thousands of templates online. If you don't know how to code, you can buy them and then boast about having made an app, when in reality you only downloaded and minimally configured it.

At least with paid templates, the code is usually reviewed by programmers and follows standards. With AI, there's no such guarantee, and the larger the project, the greater the risk of errors.

The problem with that type of content

These types of posts not only generate confusion, but also fuel the myth that "programming is dead." In reality, they're just chasing likes and selling services, pretending to be AI experts when they're doing the opposite of what real experts, like the head of Google Chrome, recommend.

In my opinion, this type of content is toxic to the community.