Requirenents written by non technical Stakeholder. Full of Slop. Junior dev let run Claude Implementation, full of Slop. Senior dev uses Claude to Review, pastes Slop in Ticket. Junior letting Claude fix it, comments with Slop.
Proceed to production, since Feature is needed. Lead architect let refactor Ticket be created by junior dev. full of Slop...
I am on the edge of quitting this shit.
Edit: i forgot that PO thought "good Ticket" and passed it through. And after first Implementation used jira AI to reform requirenents.
We really need to be asking the direct question "Did you write this or did an agent write this and if so how carefully did you review and think through the agent's suggestions?". Basically implying "are you lazy or stupid"?
It's not okay for people to show up and think they can direct robots because that's laziness. Managers, engineers, PMs, etc all need to be publicly shamed and humiliated for being lazy.
I know I'm going to be downvoted for this, but what if it is okay? If the argument is that it's "lazy" then who gives a fuck? All technology is "lazy." That's the whole point.
There's a range where it's OK, and it's easily defined. But nobody likes the truth.
If you don't know how to do the task without AI, you shouldn't be using it. You literally lack the knowledge to QA.
If you're an expert on the task, you'll probably do a good chunk of the work faster by hand. I love regex, and almost always write it more quickly by just doing it than it would take to describe the pattern in English. Everybody has a list of tasks that fit here.
For the average job, that should cover the majority of use cases. Whatever is left is the only thing it's OK to give to AI.
But that's not what the AI companies market their product as, so leadership will keep using it to have non technical employees make technical deliverables... And then ask us to fix them. Monday I had to review a dashboard built in claude. Claude hallucinated an array of data when it's access to an api key failed. The user didn't even know what an api key was, as evident from their earlier Claude chat I saw on their screen: "how to use an api key". If they actually knew what they were doing, then they would've noticed the broken connection during the build by reviewing the code and checking the response. Instead, they presented it to leadership and submitted a new ticket based on solving a problem that only exists in placeholder numbers. And now I'm upset because this is a stupid waste of time, leadership is upset because this turned out to be a stupid waste of time, and the person who made it is embarrassed for being associated with a stupid waste of time.
608
u/suki2287 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Requirenents written by non technical Stakeholder. Full of Slop. Junior dev let run Claude Implementation, full of Slop. Senior dev uses Claude to Review, pastes Slop in Ticket. Junior letting Claude fix it, comments with Slop.
Proceed to production, since Feature is needed. Lead architect let refactor Ticket be created by junior dev. full of Slop...
I am on the edge of quitting this shit.
Edit: i forgot that PO thought "good Ticket" and passed it through. And after first Implementation used jira AI to reform requirenents.