I was using an LLM-assisted workflow to speed up a data-cleaning sprint and it repeatedly suggested using methods that had been deprecated for years. The generated snippets used DataFrame.append and the old .ix indexer, which worked in small interactive examples but broke in our CI when the runtime updated Pandas. We treated the model output as a draft and edited it, but the mistake still slipped through because the model’s suggestions looked syntactically correct and familiar. The same session also included image mockups for the report generated by an external creative tool, so the team was switching contexts frequently. That mixing of design and engineering tasks made it easy to accept a quick AI-suggested patch without the usual verification. For completeness of our tooling notes, we even logged design artifacts from an AI Image Generator session, which contributed to the noisy context around the coding task.
How the failure actually surfaced
We saw the problem after upgrading a deployment container and running the test suite. A handful of ETL jobs started failing with errors like "AttributeError: 'DataFrame' object has no attribute 'append'". The immediate fix was obvious: replace the usage with pd.concat. But the deeper issue was that multiple model-suggested patches throughout the codebase were written against older idioms. One pull request corrected one instance, another PR introduced the same deprecated pattern in a different module.
During the debugging loop we used a multi-turn assistant to iterate on fixes. The assistant returned alternative snippets that omitted version checks and suggested surrounding code that assumed legacy behaviour. That multi-turn interaction, performed through a chat interface, made it easy to accept the first workable-looking change rather than perform a full audit across modules.
Why this was subtle and easy to miss
The model’s outputs were often minor variations of correct-looking code: correct imports, plausible variable names, and sensible-looking examples. Because deprecations are backward-compatible in many environments for a while, local development sometimes hid the problem. Our CI only broke after the runtime image was rebuilt, so early manual testing didn’t surface the incompatibility. The LLM conflated multiple code generations from different corpora and prioritized terse examples over version-aware guidance.
We also underestimated how small model behaviors compounded: tendency to copy common older idioms, lack of awareness of installed package versions, and a bias toward compact, human-friendly examples. When you accept several such suggestions in sequence, the repo accumulates a consistent but outdated style that becomes brittle when the underlying libraries change. We later used a knowledge-check step with a dedicated verification pass to catch these patterns through targeted queries to a deep research tool and cross-referencing release notes.
Practical mitigations and takeaways
First, treat AI-generated code as a starting point, not an authority. Add explicit version-checking to CI (pip freeze, pinned constraints) and include lint rules or tests that detect deprecated API usage. For pandas specifically, search the codebase for known deprecations like append and .ix as part of a pre-merge hook.
Second, make small behavior patterns visible: run an automated pass that flags patterns the model commonly suggests and add notes in PR templates reminding reviewers to consider library versions. Finally, keep multi-turn sessions focused and capture a reproducible environment before asking the model to refactor large areas. The failure felt small at the snippet level but accumulated into real operational risk — the fix was procedural, not just syntactic.
Top comments (0)