You Adopted AI, Your developers are shipping more code than ever. Your pull requests have doubled. Your task completion metrics are through the roof. And your software delivery is getting worse.
This is the Velocity Trap. It is the defining paradox of AI-assisted development in 2025, and most engineering organizations are falling into it without realizing it.
If you have read one of my previous articles you know I'm an advocate of using AI to transform the product development life-cycle, but this transformation is no free of trade-offs and risks that needs to be understood and mitigated, In this article I'll discuss about 2 of these risks that are a result of an overreliance in AI for software development:
Quality and reliability of AI generated code - The 2025 DORA report reveals that AI adoption correlates with a 7.2% reduction in delivery stability despite improvements in individual output metrics. GitClear's analysis of 211 million lines of code shows an 8x increase in duplicated code blocks and a 39.9% decrease in refactoring activity. Teams are producing more artifacts while building less value.
The Impact on the formation and evolution of entry level engineers - A Stanford study shows a 13% relative decline in employment for early-career engineers in AI-exposed roles while senior positions remain stable. Companies have quietly stopped hiring juniors, preferring to invest in senior engineers who can leverage AI effectively.
The Productivity Paradox Nobody Is Measuring
A rigorous study on AI coding productivity came from METR in mid-2025. Researchers ran a randomized controlled trial with experienced developers across 246 real-world coding tasks. The finding was stunning: developers using AI tools were 19% slower than the control group. The critical detail is that those same developers believed they were faster.
This disconnect explains everything. The brain's reward system responds to AI-generated suggestions the same way it responds to solving problems ourselves. We feel productive. We press tab and accept the suggestion. The dopamine hits. But the code that accumulates is not the code we would have written, and increasingly, it is not code we fully understand.
The downstream effects appear in metrics most teams are not tracking. Code review times have increased 91% for teams heavily adopting AI. Pull request sizes have grown 154%. The bottleneck has shifted from writing code to reviewing it, and reviewers are drowning in AI-generated artifacts they cannot absorb at the pace they arrive.
The Amplifier Effect
The uncomfortable truth: AI does not fix teams. It amplifies whatever dynamics already exist.
The same DORA report suggests how we should think about AI in software delivery. Rather than treating AI as a universal accelerator, the researchers demonstrate that AI functions as a systemic amplifier. It magnifies existing organizational patterns, whether those patterns are strengths or dysfunctions.
High-performing teams with strong foundations use AI to eliminate repetitive work, freeing capacity for architecture and complex problem-solving. Their delivery velocity increases while quality remains stable.
Teams constrained by process or technical debt experience the opposite. AI generates code faster than their review processes can absorb. Their CI/CD pipelines buckle under increased load. Defect rates and duplicate code climbs. The organization responds by adding more process, which slows delivery further, which increases pressure to use AI more aggressively. The spiral accelerates.
51% of engineering leaders now view AI's impact as negative despite 90% of developers reporting positive sentiment.
The Junior Developer Crisis
Besides the quality and overall slowness effects, perhaps the most consequential long-term risk is what AI overreliance is doing to the engineering talent pipeline. The tasks AI handles best, boilerplate code, simple bug fixes, test generation, are precisely the tasks that have historically served as the learning ground for junior developers. When AI handles this work, the traditional on-ramp to engineering expertise disappears.
This creates a recursive problem. Current AI models were trained on code written by humans with deep understanding. We are now teaching developers to learn from AI output rather than first principles. Each iteration becomes more removed from fundamental understanding.
The phenomenon known as "vibe coding" captures this perfectly. Developers can produce complex applications without understanding how they work. When the AI-generated code breaks, these developers are helpless. They can generate more code. They cannot debug what they have.
By 2030, we face a potential crisis where organizations cannot find engineers capable of making architectural decisions or debugging systems at a fundamental level, since they are not learning now how to do it.
The Playbook for Mitigating Over-Reliance Risks
The path forward is not to abandon AI. Adoption is irreversible and AI is here to stay. The path forward is to move from unmanaged velocity to governed agility, from measuring output to measuring outcomes.
Step 1. Treat AI Code as Untrusted Input
Create explicit policies requiring engineer-in-the-loop validation for all AI-generated contributions. Not just any reviewer, but qualified engineers who understand system context and can evaluate architectural fit, security implications, and business logic. Tag AI-generated code for tracking so you can measure its performance in production separately. Make "never merge code you have not read and understood" a non-negotiable norm.
Pitfall: Creating policies without enforcement. Build validation requirements into your CI/CD pipeline.
Metric: Defect rates in AI-generated versus human-written code.
Step 2. Implement Multi-Layer Quality Gates
Deploy automated quality analysis at multiple points: pre-commit analysis catching basic issues, pull request enhancement augmenting human review with AI analysis, and continuous monitoring tracking quality trends over time. Research shows teams using AI-assisted code review see 81% quality improvement compared to 55% without.
Use AI to enhance and automate your testing strategy. AI can build unit, contract and integration tests very efficiently, not only increaseing the coverage, but by understand patterns, behaviours, analysing telemetry and cover the most critical paths with edge cases a human would find it difficult to do it. Capitalize on that to reduce the bugs and performance issues before moving AI generated code into production
Pitfall: Treating AI review as replacement for human review. You need both.
Metric: Quality improvement from baseline, security vulnerability escape rate. Defect rates in AI-generated versus human-written code.
Step 3. Build Context and Reusability as Infrastructure
This step separates organizations that get exponential returns from those that accelerate technical debt. The difference is whether AI outputs compound into organizational assets or evaporate as disposable code.
Treat context as persistent, versioned infrastructure. Create project-specific context files encoding your architecture, standards, and constraints. Structure context packs with description, inputs, outputs, constraints, and examples. Right-size to interfaces and contracts, not full repositories. Too little context and AI hallucinates. Too much and noise drowns signal.
Design for compound engineering: workflows where multiple AI capabilities stack. Generative models produce code, predictive models select test coverage, optimization models tune performance. Each capability feeds the next. Instruct AI to produce modular components with clear interfaces designed for reuse. Use meta-prompts like "Optimize for reusability and clarity across modules." Build feedback loops where production results and code reviews update your context packs and guardrails automatically.
Pitfall: Treating every AI interaction as an isolated transaction. That creates technical debt at AI speed.
Metric: Reuse ratio across projects, reduction in duplicate patterns, first-pass acceptance rate over time.
Step 4. Preserve Skills and Rebuild the Talent Pipeline
The junior developer crisis is not a future problem. It is happening now.
Schedule pair programming sessions and debugging exercises using manual tools. Skills atrophy without use. When AI fails on edge cases, engineers who have lost fundamental skills cannot recover.
Do not eliminate entry-level roles. Reimagine them. The tasks AI handles, boilerplate, simple bugs, test generation, can become learning exercises rather than production shortcuts. Use AI as an explanation engine: have juniors ask AI to explain generated code line by line, then explain it back to a senior. Understanding why code works matters more than producing it. Train critical evaluation through AI code review: juniors review AI-generated code specifically to find flaws, security issues, and architectural violations. This develops judgment faster than writing code from scratch because they see more patterns in less time. Have juniors write context files and prompts for the team. Crafting effective AI instructions requires deep domain understanding, forcing them to learn the system architecture and business logic to communicate it precisely.
The role of the engineer is shifting from code author to AI orchestrator. Invest in the skills this era demands: prompt engineering, context management, critical evaluation of AI output, architectural thinking, security review, and debugging AI-produced code.
Pitfall: Assuming engineers will figure it out. Self-directed learning fails for the majority who need structure and deliberate practice.
Metric: Skill retention assessments, debugging proficiency without AI, junior-to-senior progression rates.
Step 5. Measure Outcomes, Not Output
Establish baseline metrics before expanding AI adoption: deployment frequency, change failure rate, mean time to recovery. Add quality metrics: bug escape rate, code duplication percentage, refactoring rate. Track developer experience: satisfaction scores, trust in AI outputs, time spent debugging AI code versus manual code. If a metric does not change behavior when it moves, stop tracking it.
Pitfall: Focusing only on velocity metrics while ignoring quality degradation.
Metric: Clear correlation between AI usage and delivery outcomes.
What to Start, Stop, Continue
For Executives
Start: Treating AI adoption as operating model transformation, not tool rollout. Measuring delivery outcomes alongside productivity metrics. Investing in training with dedicated budget. Linking AI goals to performance reviews. Reimagining junior roles instead of eliminating them.
Stop: Declaring victory based on adoption percentages. Measuring success by lines of code. Cutting junior headcount without reimagining entry-level development. Expecting instant ROI without accounting for the proficiency curve. Assuming skills will develop without structured investment.
Continue: Investing in engineering excellence as the foundation AI amplifies. Demanding evidence that AI delivers value, not just activity. Building the mentorship infrastructure that develops future senior talent.
For Engineers
Start: Treating AI-generated code as untrusted input. Learning prompt engineering and context management as core professional skills. Building and maintaining context files for your projects. Practicing regularly without AI to maintain fundamental capabilities. Mentoring juniors on how to evaluate and improve AI output.
Stop: Accepting tab completions without reading the code. Expecting AI to understand implicit context. Relying on AI for problems you cannot solve yourself. Letting AI become a substitute for developing architectural thinking.
Continue: Applying the same rigor to AI-generated code as any code review. Building expertise that makes you effective with or without AI. Investing in the fundamentals that let you know when AI is wrong.
Strategic Takeaway
The organizations winning in AI-assisted development are not the ones generating the most code. They are the ones generating the most value with the highest integrity.
The winning strategy is not AI First. It is Engineering First, AI Accelerated. Build the foundations that AI amplifies: robust governance, quality engineering practices, context discipline, and continuous skill development. Measure what matters, outcomes rather than output, and be willing to slow down when the metrics indicate degradation.
AI is a kinetic weapon that amplifies both competence and dysfunction. Deploy it into a mature engineering organization with strong discipline, and it multiplies capability. Deploy it into a struggling organization without foundations, and it accelerates collapse.
The junior developer crisis adds urgency. If we do not invest in skill development and rebuild the talent pipeline now, the question "who will be senior in 2035?" will have no good answer. The engineers who thrive in this new era will be those who can work effectively with or without AI, who understand systems deeply enough to know when AI output is wrong, and who develop the judgment that only comes from deliberate practice and struggle.
The question is not whether to use AI. That decision is already made. The question is whether you will use it in ways that build sustainable advantage, develop your people, and create long-term organizational capability, or in ways that create short-term illusions while undermining everything that makes great engineering possible.
If this challenges your current AI strategy, that is the point. Share your perspective. Challenge the framework. The best operating models emerge from rigorous debate, not comfortable consensus.
Top comments (0)