A common AI coding error is using an array's index as the 'key' for list items. This seems logical but is unstable, causing bugs when items are added or removed, such as deleting the wrong element. The correct approach is to assign a truly unique and persistent ID to each item.
Building complex, multi-step AI processes directly with code generators creates a black box that is difficult to debug. Instead, prototype and validate the workflow step-by-step using a visual tool like N8N first. This isolates failure points and makes the entire system more manageable.
Even though modern AI coding assistants can handle complex, single-shot requests, it's more reliable to build an application in stages. First, build the core functionality, then add secondary features, and finally add tertiary elements like download buttons. This iterative approach prevents the AI from getting confused.
When using AI development tools, first leverage their "planning" mode. The AI may correctly identify code to change but misinterpret the strategic goal. Correct the AI's plan (e.g., from a global change to a user-specific one) before implementation to avoid rework.
Product leaders must personally engage with AI development. Direct experience reveals unique, non-human failure modes. Unlike a human developer who learns from mistakes, an AI can cheerfully and repeatedly make the same error—a critical insight for managing AI projects and team workflow.
Don't dismiss AI-generated code for being buggy. Its purpose isn't to build a scalable product, but to rapidly test ideas and find user demand. Crashing under heavy load is a success signal that justifies hiring engineers for a proper rebuild.
'Vibe coding' describes using AI to generate code for tasks outside one's expertise. While it accelerates development and enables non-specialists, it relies on a 'vibe' that the code is correct, potentially introducing subtle bugs or bad practices that an expert would spot.
When an AI tool makes a mistake, treat it as a learning opportunity for the system. Ask the AI to reflect on why it failed, such as a flaw in its system prompt or tooling. Then, update the underlying documentation and prompts to prevent that specific class of error from happening again in the future.
AI can generate code that passes initial tests and QA but contains subtle, critical flaws like inverted boolean checks. This creates 'trust debt,' where the system seems reliable but harbors hidden failures. These latent bugs are costly and time-consuming to debug post-launch, eroding confidence in the codebase.
While AI tools excel at generating initial drafts of code or designs, their editing capabilities are poor. The difficulty of making specific changes often forces creators to discard the AI output and start over, as editing is where the "magic" breaks down.
When an AI model makes the same undesirable output two or three times, treat it as a signal. Create a custom rule or prompt instruction that explicitly codifies the desired behavior. This trains the AI to avoid that specific mistake in the future, improving consistency over time.