[strken]

My experience has been that it wraps all the obvious things, and even some obscure things, in error handling. In this sense it is safer.

It also fails to write abstractions unless they're carbon copies of a well established pattern, and when abstractions already exist, it needs babysitting to ensure it will use them appropriately. It won't introspect about its current direction unless forced to by the user or by an error, and when forced it will happily "fix" non-issues just because you pointed them out, since it's a happy little yes-man.

Because of this, code written by a good engineer is more likely to start out broken but converges towards correctness as more abstractions get built, while code written by AI duplicates abstraction layers, leaks between them, and never converges towards anything.

[cableshaft]

I've definitely had a lot of these same experiences (in fact I've been fighting it on one particular issue the past couple of days and I'm pretty much just giving up and going back to solving it manually now).

But it still seems to get it right (or at least close enough to right that I keep using it) more often than it gets into these traps.