I use the house analogy a lot these days. A colleague vibe-coded an app and it does what it is supposed to, but the code really is an unmaintainable hodgepodge of files. I compare this to a house that looks functional on the surface, but has the toilet in the middle of the living room, an unsafe electrical system, water leaks, etc. I am afraid only the facade of the house will need to be beautiful, only to realize that they traded off glittery paint for shaky foundations.
To extend your analogy: AI is effectively mass-producing 'Subprime Housing'.
It has amazing curb appeal (glittering paint), but as a banker, I'd rate this as a 'Toxic Asset' with zero collateral value.
The scary part is that the 'interest rate' on this technical debt is variable. Eventually, it becomes cheaper to declare bankruptcy (rewrite from scratch) than to pay off the renovation costs.
My experience with it is the code just wouldn't have existed in the first place otherwise. Nobody was going to pay thousands of dollars for it and it just needs to work and be accurate. It's not the backend code you give root access to on the company server, it's automating the boring aspects of the job with a basic frontend.
I've been able to save people money and time. If someone comes in later and has a more elegant solution for the same $60 effort I spent great! Otherwise I'll continue saving people money and time with my non-perfect code.
In banking terms, you are treating AI code as "OPEX" (Operating Expense) rather than "CAPEX" (Capital Expenditure).
As long as we treat these $60 quick-fixes as "depreciating assets" (use it and throw it away), itβs great ROI.
My warning was specifically about the danger of mistaking these quick-fixes for "Long-term Capital Assets."
As long as you know it's a disposable tool, not a foundation, we are on the same page.
