AI-Powered IDEs are broken

TL;DR:
AI-powered IDEs are currently built to act like over-eager coders—they jump to modify code without truly understanding the context or reasoning behind the change. This behavior disrupts deep thinking and is risky in production environments. A better design would be to introduce two distinct modes—Consultant (asks questions, explores context) and Worker (executes well-defined instructions). This separation can make AI IDEs far more useful and trustworthy for serious development work.

Let me start with two quick throwbacks:

When I used to solve competitive programming problems—especially of a new kind—if a friend shared their approach before I had time to think through it myself, I’d often get mentally stuck in their line of reasoning, even if it was wrong or incomplete.
Back in school, there was always that one kid who raised their hand for every question—regardless of whether they actually understood what was being asked.

Working with AI-powered IDEs reminds me of both. While these tools are great for hobby projects and boilerplate-heavy tasks, they seem to fall apart when it comes to writing production-grade code. Here’s why.

Let’s call the AI assistant “Y.” Y’s eagerness to jump in and change things is unsettling. Faced with a bug or a task, Y will happily rewrite 10 lines or delete 5 and declare the issue resolved. But in production, the real challenge isn’t making changes—it’s making the right minimal change, backed by solid reasoning and context. That requires understanding, restraint, and justification. Y often skips all of that.

Even when adding features, we often go through architecture reviews, design discussions, and security considerations. Y skips all of it. It’s like working with that overconfident student from school—fast to raise its hand, slow to truly understand.

Another issue: Y’s behavior actually blunts the developer’s own thinking. By offering quick solutions without engaging in the depth of the problem, it anchors the developer’s thoughts and narrows the solution space—just like my CP friend did unintentionally.

Yes, I know: “Just prompt it better.” But needing to micromanage prompts every time is inefficient and unrealistic in real-world dev workflows. Why isn’t this handled natively?

Here’s a suggestion: introduce modes.

Consultant Mode: Asks questions, tries to understand context and constraints, and suggests solutions only after developing a clear mental model.

Worker Mode: Waits for precise instructions, executes them with minimal assumptions, and avoids taking shortcuts.

Switching between these two would make AI-based IDEs far more production-friendly—and actually helpful.