AI is not making software worse, people are
The article argues that AI is not responsible for poor software quality; rather, it is the developers who have lowered standards over time. It highlights how the normalization of inefficient software practices has led to a culture of wastefulness in coding. Ultimately, the author believes that AI merely accelerates existing issues rather than creating new ones.
- ▪The author asserts that blaming AI for bad software is a way to avoid addressing deeper issues in software development.
- ▪They emphasize that software quality has been declining for years, long before AI became prevalent.
- ▪The article critiques the current state of software engineering, where resource consumption is often ignored in favor of convenience.
2 outlets in our directory ran this story, first to last over 5 hours. All of the coverage we found sits in one bucket: centre. That one-sidedness is itself worth noticing.
- ▪ Developing software for people — r/SaaS
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Raphamorim |
| Canonical URL | https://rapha.land/no-ai-is-not-making-software-worse-people-are/ |
| Publication time | Mon, 25 May 2026 07:29:51 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-25T07:37:36.533Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-25T07:37:36.533Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | p0S5z7M7pNXj · 2 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
A quick note before anything else: this article isn’t linked on my home page. AI is such a dramatic and sensitive topic right now that I’d rather avoid the noise around it. I just wanted to put my thoughts into words, so I can share them with friends if they ever ask how I feel about it. And, I am also concerned that people think I like AI slop code, since in this world it’s either good or bad, there’s no mid term. Every other day I see the same headline in a slightly different costume: “AI is making software worse.” And every time, I think the same thing. No, it isn’t. People are. AI is just the latest tool we’ve handed to people who were already comfortable shipping bad software. Let me be clear from the start: I’m not an AI enthusiast. Well, I do like the technology behind it.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Raphamorim.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Raphamorim
