>If you largely accept their edits unchanged, your codebase will accrue massive technical debt over time and ultimately slow you down vs semi-automatic LLM use.

Worse, as its planning the next change, it's reading all this bad code that it wrote before, but now that bad code is blessed input. It writes more of it, and instructions to use a better approach are outweighed by the "evidence".

Also, it's not tech debt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27990979#28010192

▲

adam_arthur 2 hours ago | parent [-]

People can take on debt for all sorts of things. To go on vacation, to gamble.

Debt doesn't imply it's productively borrowed or intelligently used. Or even knowingly accrued.

So given that the term technical debt has historically been used, it seems the most appropriate descriptor.

If you write a large amount of terrible code and end up with a money producing product, you owe that debt back. It will hinder your business or even lead to its collapse. If it were quantified in accounting terms, it would be a liability (though the sum of the parts could still be net positive)

Most "technical debt" is not buying the code author anything and is materialized through negligence rather than intelligently accepting a tradeoff

	▲	lowbloodsugar 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		All those examples were borrowing money. What you're describing as "technical debt" doesn't involve borrowing anything. The equivalent for a vacation would be to take your kids to a motel with a pool and dress up as Mickey Mouse and tell them its "Disney World debt". You didn't go in debt. You didn't go to Disney World. You just spent what money you do have on a shit solution. Your kids quite possibly had fun, even. > term technical debt has historically been used There are plenty of terms that we no longer use because they cause harm.