Reacting to Developers Who Say AI Coding Is "Cheating" (This Got Heated)

'Anyone using AI to code is a fraud. You're not a real developer. You're a prompt monkey.'

3,000 likes on that post.

'AI coders are the new no-code bros'

'The craft is dead'

'Wait until production bugs hit'

The AI coding backlash is real. And honestly? Some of these people have a point.

Let's talk about it.

The Claim: 'If you use AI to write code, you're not learning. You're just copying output without understanding. When it breaks, you're helpless.'

Okay. This one's partially valid. Let me explain.

If you're blindly copying AI output without understanding it? Yeah, you're not learning. You're accumulating technical debt you can't fix.

But here's what AI haters miss: the best AI coders don't skip understanding. They use AI to ACCELERATE understanding.

Watch this. I ask Claude to write a function. Then I ask: 'Explain every line. Why did you choose this approach? What alternatives exist?'

I learned more from that 30-second exchange than I would have from Stack Overflow copying.

The criticism isn't wrong. It's incomplete. AI can make you dumber OR smarter depending on how you use it.

Blaming the tool for bad users is lazy thinking.

The Claim: 'AI-generated code is full of bugs, security holes, and bad patterns. No serious codebase uses AI slop.'

Let's test this.

I'm going to ask Claude to build a user authentication system. Let's see how 'garbage' it is.

Hm. Password hashing with bcrypt. JWT tokens with proper expiration. Input validation. Rate limiting. CSRF protection.

Now let me show you code from a StackOverflow answer with 500 upvotes...

THIS is what junior developers copy. AI suggested better security practices than humans upvoting on Stack Overflow.

Is all AI code perfect? No. Is all human code perfect? Also no.

The difference is: AI code is reviewable in seconds. It doesn't have an ego. It doesn't argue when you ask for changes.

Bad AI code + good review = good code. Bad human code + ego = production incident.

The Claim: 'Using AI to code is cheating. Developers who grinded for years to learn are being replaced by people who can't even write a for loop.'

This is the one that gets me.

You know what else was 'cheating'?

Using high-level languages instead of assembly

Using frameworks instead of raw code

Using Stack Overflow instead of reading documentation

Using IDEs instead of Notepad

Every generation of developers complains that the next generation has it too easy.

1980: 'Real programmers use assembly'

1990: 'Real programmers don't need fancy IDEs'

2000: 'Real programmers don't copy from the internet'

2010: 'Real programmers don't use frameworks'

2020: 'Real programmers don't use AI'

Gatekeeping isn't about quality. It's about ego.

You didn't grind for years because suffering builds character. You grinded because better tools didn't exist yet.

Congrats on surviving the hard way. Now let others thrive the smart way.

The Claim: 'AI bros are shipping toys. Wait until they have to maintain real systems at scale. They'll come crawling back to 'real' engineering.'

Alright, this one deserves a real answer.

Production systems ARE different. Scale matters. Maintenance matters. Edge cases multiply.

And yes - some AI-built apps will fail spectacularly in production. That's true.

But here's what this take misses:

100+ founders have shipped AI-built products to real users. Combined revenue: $28+ million. Some running for years now.

Production SaaS with 10,000 users - AI-built

E-commerce platform processing $2M/year - AI-built

Developer tools with enterprise clients - AI-built

These aren't toys. They're businesses.

The founders who succeed aren't using AI to skip engineering. They're using AI to FOCUS their engineering on what matters.

AI handles the boilerplate. Humans handle the edge cases. That's not cheating - that's efficiency.

The Claim: 'Before using AI, you should spend at least 2 years learning to code the traditional way. Otherwise you'll never understand fundamentals.'

This is the most reasonable criticism. And I partially agree.

Understanding fundamentals matters. Data structures. Algorithms. System design. If you don't understand these, AI becomes a black box.

I've seen people ship AI code that works but is O(n^3) when it should be O(n). They don't know enough to spot it.

But '2 years first'? That's arbitrary gatekeeping.

Here's what I recommend instead:

Learn WITH AI from day one. But always ask 'why.' Understand every line before accepting it. Use AI as a teacher, not just a writer.

'Explain this code to me like I'm a beginner. What concepts does it use? What should I learn to understand it deeply?'

That's faster than 2 years of grinding. And you're building real things while learning.

Here's what I think is really happening:

Software development is being disrupted. And disruption is scary.

Developers who spent years mastering skills that AI now commoditizes feel threatened. That's human.

If I'd spent a decade becoming an expert at something, and then a $20/month tool could do 80% of it... I'd be defensive too.

But turning that fear into gatekeeping helps no one.

The developers who'll thrive aren't fighting AI. They're the ones who ask: 'What can I do NOW that I couldn't before?'

Build faster? Yes.

Take on more complex projects? Yes.

Start businesses without funding? Yes.

Learn new languages in days instead of months? Yes.

AI doesn't diminish developers. It amplifies them.

Unless you refuse to use it. Then it replaces you.

Look, if you're watching this and you're skeptical of AI coding - good. Skepticism is healthy.

But don't let skepticism become stubbornness.

Try the tools. Form your own opinion. We've got comparisons of every major AI coding tool, tutorials to get started, and real success stories to show what's possible.

Link in description.

The debate about whether AI coding is 'legitimate' is already over.

The only question left is: are you using it to build, or arguing about it on Reddit?

I know which one pays better.