Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, Claude only knows how to spew code. Every problem you want it to solve, it translates into "more code" rather than "less code". You have to very closely code review everything it does, otherwise your codebase is going to just grow and grow, and asymptotically approach 100% debt. I code review everything that Claude produces, and I'd estimate about 90-95% of the time, my reaction is WOW it works but…
At this point, it's worth asking whether lots of relatively straightforward verbose code is actually significantly worse than the least code necessary for the problem. Obviously, architecture matters. What might matter less is verbosity. The reason we aimed for minimal "accidental complexity" up to now was directly related to the cost/pain of changing and maintaining that code. Hasn't the economics of maintenance and…
They have, but not in the way you mean.
AI knows nothing about software engineering. AI is a technical debt generator.
You can mitigate this somewhat if you put an actual software engineer at the helm with lots of prompting, but at some point the technical debt accrues enough that neither humans nor AI can fix anything.
As an example, this is what happened to OpenClaw. (And why you suddenly stopped reading hype about it.) OpenAI paid millions for literal trash.