The CTO Was Chatgpt
Key topics
As the AI revolution gains momentum, a provocative question is being debated: what's the future for engineers who can salvage and refine the code generated by AI tools like ChatGPT? Some commenters, like dmitrygr, foresee a lucrative market for skilled engineers who can "unfuck" AI-bungled projects, while others, like Frieren, express reluctance to take on this role. The discussion highlights the emerging trend of "hardening" AI-generated prototypes for production, with some entrepreneurs, like jackdawed, already capitalizing on this opportunity. Amidst the discussion, a consensus emerges that human engineers will remain essential for refining and making sense of AI-generated code.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
2m
Peak period
6
0-3h
Avg / period
3.5
Based on 21 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 25, 2025 at 10:06 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 25, 2025 at 10:07 PM EDT
2m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
6 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 27, 2025 at 12:30 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I do not want to do that work. Cleaning up junior code is easy, because they mess in predictable ways.
LLM generated code can be extremely complex at the same time that nonsensical. It has a line of genius and then code that does nothing. It can use many different libraries mixed in inhuman ways.
Better to let that companies shut down and do something better elsewhere.
No such thing with AI.
billions were poured over AI companies (and yes, nowadays, if you are writing a stateful loop on top of LLM API you are considered as an AI company).
it will take sometime for new money to arrive into the cycle.
this CTO was simply naively trying to fulfill the Sam Altman (and the likes) promise "the future of AI", "90% of our code is written by AI" and so on.
this is the is on the borderline of scam, sure enough misleading the public.
In the best cases, they were able to reach funding or paying users. Architecture debt is one of the worst kinds of tech debt, so if you set it up right, it’s really hard to mess up.
In the worst case, after my contract ended, the CEO fired the whole US engineering team and replaced them with offshore resources. This was an example of messing up despite the architectural and procedural safeguards we built.
I think it's a hoax.
Is the solipsism hitting yet?
Wouldn’t that rule out that exit strategy?
Or did M&A also get vibed to oblivion now?
I can see how a tech-centric person would see the described business as viable, but putting on my founder hat, I realize that it faces enormous risks:
- Any competitor could build the same product with less janky UX; users tend to hate even unavoidable usability issues.
- There's no compliance strategy even remotely possible in the described scenario.
- If a capital investment becomes necessary for business scaling, I cannot imagine this organization passing even a perfunctory level of due diligence.
Would be happy to hear out if that makes sense.