I’m going back to writing code by hand

A developer has publicly stated they are returning to writing code manually after experiencing significant issues with AI-generated code in a Kubernetes dashboard project, highlighting ongoing challenges in AI-assisted development.

The developer, known on Hacker News as shvbsle, built a GPU-aware Kubernetes dashboard called k10s using AI assistance from Claude. Over seven months, they prompted the AI to generate features, including resource views, fleet monitoring, and live updates, which initially worked well. However, problems emerged when the AI-generated code became increasingly complex and intertwined, leading to a critical failure where the dashboard’s fleet view stopped updating correctly, and the codebase grew unwieldy.

The developer examined the entire code, revealing an overly monolithic structure with a single large ‘Model’ struct containing UI components, Kubernetes client data, and state for various views. The Update() method was a 500-line dispatch function with numerous switch cases, making the code difficult to maintain. The developer identified that AI assistance focused on feature delivery rather than sound architecture, resulting in a fragile, self-consuming codebase that ultimately collapsed under its complexity.

As a result, the developer decided to archive the AI-generated code and rewrite the project from scratch manually, emphasizing better architecture and maintainability. This decision was driven by the realization that AI writing features without architectural constraints can lead to technical debt and system failure.

Why It Matters

This development underscores the limitations of relying solely on AI for complex software architecture. While AI can accelerate feature development, it may produce code that is difficult to maintain, especially when it lacks guidance on overall system design. The incident serves as a cautionary tale for developers integrating AI into their workflows, emphasizing the need for human oversight and architectural discipline.

Background

The project, started in late September 2025, was initially successful, with AI-generated features rapidly implemented. The developer used Claude to build core views, including GPU fleet monitoring, which worked seamlessly at first. Over time, as features accumulated, the AI-generated code became increasingly entangled. The critical failure occurred after several months of prompting and shipping features without thorough code review or structural planning, revealing the risks of AI-driven coding without constraints.

“AI builds features, not architecture. Every feature was perfect on its own, but the code grew into a fragile, self-consuming mess.”

— shvbsle (the developer)

“I realized that letting AI drive without constraints leads to wreckage. I’m now rewriting the project by hand to ensure better architecture.”

— shvbsle

What Remains Unclear

It remains unclear whether the developer will fully trust AI assistance again or adopt stricter architectural guidelines in future projects. The long-term impact on their workflow and project stability is also still developing.

What’s Next

The developer plans to rewrite the k10s dashboard manually, focusing on modular, maintainable architecture. They may also establish guidelines for AI-assisted coding to prevent similar issues. Further updates on the project’s progress are expected in the coming months.

Key Questions

Why did the developer stop using AI to generate code?

The developer found that AI-generated code became too complex and entangled, leading to system failures. They realized that AI focuses on features rather than architecture, which can produce fragile code structures.

What specific problems did the AI-generated code cause?

The code led to issues such as a non-updating fleet view, stale data, and an overly monolithic structure that was difficult to maintain or modify. The code eventually ‘ate itself,’ requiring a complete rewrite.

Will the developer use AI assistance again?

The developer has not ruled out future AI use but intends to implement stricter architectural guidelines and oversight to prevent recurrence of similar issues.

What lessons does this incident offer to other developers?

It highlights the importance of architectural discipline when using AI for coding. AI can accelerate feature development but should not replace careful planning and human oversight to ensure maintainability.