The senior developer on my team found it during a routine code review. A seemingly innocent function that calculated shipping costs. Clean syntax, proper error handling, comprehensive test coverage. Everything looked perfect.
Except it was wrong.
Not obviously wrong—the kind of wrong that passes all your tests, deploys successfully, and only reveals itself three months later when a customer in Alaska gets charged $47,000 for standard shipping. The kind of wrong that AI generates beautifully.
This is the invisible bug problem. And if you're using AI to write production code without understanding how these bugs form, you're building a time bomb into your codebase.
The Plausible Code Problem
AI-generated code has a superpower that makes it dangerous: it looks more correct than it actually is.
Traditional bugs are obvious. Syntax errors won't compile. Logic errors fail tests. Performance issues show up in profiling. But AI bugs are different—they're semantically plausible mistakes that masquerade as working code.
The shipping cost function was a perfect example. The AI understood the general pattern of calculating shipping based on weight and distance. It generated clean TypeScript with proper typing. It handled edge cases for weight limits and invalid inputs. The unit tests passed because we tested for the happy path and obvious edge cases.
What it didn't account for was the way our shipping API returned distance—in meters, not miles. The AI assumed miles because that's the common pattern in US shipping examples. It never threw an error. It just quietly calculated costs that were off by a factor of 1,609.
This mistake would be impossible for a human developer familiar with our codebase. They'd know our API returns SI units. But the AI had no context beyond the function signature and the prompt. It filled in the gaps with statistically likely assumptions that happened to be wrong.
Why Tests Don't Catch This
The standard advice is "just write good tests." But AI-generated code breaks this assumption in subtle ways.
When you write code yourself, you have mental models of how it should behave. Your tests verify those models. But when AI writes code, it's working from a different model—one based on statistical patterns in training data, not your system's actual behavior.
The AI that wrote our shipping function generated tests too. Those tests verified that the function handled various weights correctly, that it rejected negative inputs, that it formatted currency properly. All true. All passing. All useless for catching the units conversion bug.
The tests reflected the AI's misunderstanding, not reality. They were internally consistent with the broken implementation.
This is the invisible bug pattern: AI generates code and tests that agree with each other but not with your actual requirements.
The Context Collapse
Every experienced developer knows that understanding the why behind code is more important than understanding the what. Comments explain intent. Variable names reveal purpose. Commit messages capture decisions.
AI doesn't have access to this context unless you explicitly provide it. And even then, it might not weight it correctly.
I asked Claude Sonnet 4.5 to help refactor a complex authentication flow. I provided the existing code, explained that we needed to maintain backward compatibility with legacy clients, and asked for improvements.
The AI generated beautiful, modern code using the latest auth patterns. Async/await instead of callbacks. Proper error boundaries. Clean separation of concerns. It was objectively better code than what we had.
It also broke authentication for 40% of our users—the ones still on older client versions that expected a specific response format. The AI optimized for code quality without understanding that sometimes, technical debt exists for business reasons.
The context that mattered—"we have users who can't upgrade their clients"—got deprioritized in favor of "modern best practices." The AI made the wrong tradeoff because it couldn't understand the full implications of the change.
The Pattern Recognition Trap
AI excels at recognizing patterns. This is its strength and its fatal weakness in production code.
When you ask an AI to implement a feature, it looks for similar patterns in its training data and adapts them to your context. Most of the time, this works surprisingly well. But occasionally, it pattern-matches in ways that create subtle, cascading failures.
We needed a function to merge user preferences from multiple sources with proper precedence rules. I gave GPT-4.1 the requirements: database settings override defaults, user-provided settings override database settings, but some fields should never be overridden for security reasons.
The AI generated a clean reducer pattern with proper precedence. It even added comments explaining the logic. But it made an assumption: that "security-critical fields" meant things like password hashes and API keys.
In our system, "security-critical" also included user permission levels. The AI's implementation allowed users to potentially escalate their own permissions by providing malicious preference data. Not because it was trying to create a vulnerability—it just pattern-matched "security" to "credentials" and missed the authorization implications.
A human reviewer might catch this. But would they? The code looked secure. It handled the obvious cases. The vulnerability was in what the code didn't do, not what it did.
How to Actually Use AI Safely
The answer isn't to stop using AI for production code. The answer is to change how you integrate it into your development process.
Treat AI as a junior developer who's really good at syntax but terrible at context. You wouldn't let a junior dev ship code without review, and you shouldn't let AI-generated code ship without verification that goes beyond "does it compile."
Use AI for scaffolding, not implementation. Let AI generate the boilerplate, the type definitions, the test structure. But review every line before assuming it's correct. Use tools like the AI Code Generator to speed up the boring parts, but own the logic yourself.
Make context explicit, not implied. When prompting AI to generate code, don't assume it understands your system's quirks. Document them explicitly. "Our API returns distances in meters." "Legacy clients require this exact response format." "Permission levels must never be user-modifiable."
Cross-validate with different models. Different AI models have different training data and failure modes. What Claude 3.7 Sonnet misses, Gemini 2.5 Flash might catch. Generate the same function with multiple models and compare the implementations. Where they differ, that's where your prompt was ambiguous.
Write tests that check assumptions, not just behavior. Instead of testing "does this function return the correct output," test "does this function make the correct assumptions about its inputs." Verify units. Verify data formats. Verify that edge cases fail in expected ways.
Use AI to review AI-generated code. This sounds circular, but it works. After generating code with one model, ask a different model to review it for logical errors, security issues, or incorrect assumptions. The reviewer doesn't have the same biases as the generator.
The Verification Workflow
Here's the workflow that saved us from shipping multiple AI-generated bugs:
Generate with context. Provide extensive context in your prompts. Include relevant code snippets, API documentation, and explicit constraints.
Review for plausibility. Does the generated code look right? More importantly, does it match your mental model of how the system works?
Cross-validate. Generate the same functionality with a different model. Compare approaches. Where they differ, investigate why.
Test assumptions. Write tests that verify not just the output, but the reasoning. Check units, formats, data types, and edge case handling.
Security audit. Run the code through an AI Fact Checker specifically looking for security implications. Ask it: "What could go wrong if this code is given malicious input?"
Human review with suspicion. Code review AI-generated code with extra scrutiny. Look for what's missing, not just what's there.
The Invisible Technical Debt
Every AI-generated bug you ship creates invisible technical debt. Not the normal kind—where you know you're cutting corners—but the kind where you don't even know the corner exists.
Six months later, someone will encounter weird behavior. They'll investigate. They'll find the AI-generated function that looked perfect but made subtle incorrect assumptions. They'll spend hours understanding code that was written in seconds.
This is the real cost of using AI carelessly in production. Not the bugs you catch immediately, but the bugs that hide in plain sight, waiting for the exact conditions that trigger their failure mode.
The Path Forward
AI is too useful to avoid. Code generation speeds up development dramatically when used correctly. But "correctly" means treating AI as a tool that amplifies your judgment, not replaces it.
The developers who succeed with AI in production aren't the ones who blindly accept its output. They're the ones who understand that AI generates plausible code, not necessarily correct code. They verify, cross-check, and maintain healthy skepticism.
They use platforms like Crompt that let them compare multiple models and validate outputs across different AI systems. They don't trust a single model—they verify across multiple intelligences and their own human judgment.
The invisible bugs are invisible because they hide behind clean syntax and passing tests. Your job isn't to make AI generate perfect code—it's to make your development process robust enough to catch imperfect code before it reaches production.
AI will make mistakes. The question is whether your process will catch them before your customers do.
-Leena:)
Top comments (0)