April 4, 2026
Press 1 to code, press 2 to cry
I used AI. It worked. I hated it
He used AI, it worked — and the comments exploded
TLDR: An AI critic used a coding assistant to finish a real project and admits it worked but felt awful. Comments split between “this is the future,” “skill issue” taunts, and grief‑cycle jokes—signaling a major culture shift in how software gets built, whether developers like it or not.
An outspoken AI skeptic used Claude Code to build a certificate tool for his learning community and… it worked. But he hated the process, describing hours of rubber‑stamping code like “pressing 1 to accept” until his soul left his body. Cue the internet dogpile. One camp, led by simonw, says the misery is a workflow problem: approving every tiny change is “the most frustrating way” to use these tools. Another crowd brought the drama: riffraff framed it as the five stages of grief (he’s at bargaining), while bitwize slammed the gavel with “shape up or ship out.” Meanwhile, periodjet called the whole essay a “skill issue” with a moral sheen. Ouch.
There’s a twist: younger devs are reportedly vibing with it. One commenter’s junior protégé just feeds errors back in, refactors, tests, even runs auto‑security checks—no angst, just shipping. The original piece also roasted LinkedIn as a “digital River Styx,” yet the tool exists so learners can flex shiny completion certificates. The irony? Chef’s kiss.
Memes flew: “Press 1 to suffer,” “Grief Bingo,” and “AI is the new lint.” The result is a full‑blown culture clash: craft vs. speed, purity vs. productivity, and a growing sense that, like it or not, this is where software is heading.
Key Points
- •The author, an AI security expert, used Claude Code to build a certificate generator while migrating The Taggart Institute to Discourse.
- •The migration replaces Teachable and Discord, adapting Discourse to serve LMS-like needs.
- •Course completion certificates were a critical missing feature for learners who share achievements on LinkedIn.
- •Teachable’s certificate generator was robust, but the author cites high costs, AI feature creep, and an undisclosed security issue as reasons to leave.
- •The Claude Code–assisted build worked and appeared reasonably secure, but the author disliked the generative coding process despite time savings.