Dec 30 2025 The Copilot Delusion - Article Recap

• Core warning: Over-reliance on AI tools like Copilot is compared to pairing with a teammate who blindly pastes code from Stack Overflow without deep understanding.
• Superficial correctness: Copilot can generate code that "works" superficially but lacks real design quality and understanding of the system context.
• Chaotic codebases: Mindless use of AI-generated code leads to unsustainable codebases filled with side effects, poor architecture, and technical debt.
• Programming as craft: The article mourns the potential loss of joy and fulfillment from thoughtfully solving problems, refactoring, and building lean, elegant solutions.
• Diminished engagement: Widespread Copilot usage risks diminishing developers' deep engagement with code, turning software into a pile of quick fixes.
• Mediocrity normalization: AI-generated code could normalize mediocrity as the new best practice, cementing low standards in tooling and industry practices.
• Unsustainable software: AI-generated code that's just superficially correct creates software that's hard to maintain, understand, or extend over time.
• Industrialization of autocomplete: Copilot is described as the industrialization of autocomplete where code quantity may increase but quality and survivability decline sharply.
• Human understanding at risk: What's threatened isn't just competence, but the very human understanding of programming—deep comprehension and creative problem-solving.
• Context-free code: Automation risks producing context-free code writing that doesn't account for system architecture, business logic, or long-term maintainability.
• Hard-earned skills eroded: Years of accumulated programming expertise and pattern recognition may give way to shallow, automated solutions.
• Boilerplate vs. architecture: The article admits Copilot can be useful for simple boilerplate or brainstorming, but warns against heavy reliance for substantial code.
• Reduced understanding: Relying too heavily on automation for real code reduces programmers' genuine understanding, craftsmanship, and professional growth.
• Quality over quantity: The emphasis shifts from writing good code to writing lots of code, prioritizing velocity over thoughtfulness.
• Copilot improvements acknowledged: Copilot has improved with features like code review, multi-file edits, GitHub integration, and context-sensitive completions.
• Still generates errors: Despite improvements, it occasionally generates incorrect or "hallucinated" code and isn't a replacement for deep expertise.
• Productivity vs. craft: Copilot is a tool for productivity or brainstorming, but shouldn't replace the careful thought and design that defines good software.
• Mindful use required: The article isn't against Copilot outright but strongly cautions against depending on it without human oversight, deep thinking, and care.
• Programming as art: Defends programming as a creative and intellectual craft that could be undermined if AI tools are used mindlessly.
• Call for balance: Use AI tools as assistants, not replacements—maintain human judgment, architectural thinking, and craftsmanship in software development.

The full article is available here.