Strengths of AI in Software Development
1. Code Generation from Specifications One of the most impressive capabilities of ChatGPT is its ability to take a few lines of specifications and transform them into working code. This feature is particularly useful for creating boilerplate code, prototypes, or even complex functions based on detailed descriptions. For example, when provided with a high-level requirement, ChatGPT generated accurate and efficient code with minimal further guidance. This highlights its potential to accelerate initial development phases.
2. Code Analysis and Explanation ChatGPT excels in analyzing existing code, explaining its functionality, and adding meaningful comments. By breaking down complex logic and providing step-by-step explanations, it simplifies the understanding of legacy code or unfamiliar algorithms. This feature has been especially beneficial for debugging and documentation tasks.
3. Iterative Collaboration Throughout the development process, ChatGPT has demonstrated its ability to collaborate iteratively. Whether refining logic, optimizing performance, or reworking sections based on feedback, the AI assists effectively by incorporating changes and offering new suggestions. This interactive aspect is reminiscent of having a collaborative coding partner.
Challenges and Frustrations
Despite its strengths, there are challenges that limit ChatGPT's seamless integration into the software development workflow:
1. Context Retention and File State Management One recurring frustration is the difficulty ChatGPT has in retaining the complete state of a project or file across iterative steps. For example, when discussing changes to a file, the context of previous edits can sometimes be lost. This leads to confusion when generating a final version of the file, as the AI may inadvertently apply changes to an outdated version or misinterpret the intended state.
2. Dependency on Explicit Instructions While ChatGPT performs well with clear prompts, it struggles in scenarios where instructions are vague or when managing dependencies between multiple files. For instance, ensuring that updates in one module align with changes in another requires explicit direction from the user, limiting its ability to autonomously maintain consistency.
3. Token and Memory Limitations ChatGPT operates within a fixed token limit, which restricts how much context it can retain in a single interaction. This limitation becomes evident in projects involving large files or extended conversations, where the AI may "forget" earlier parts of the discussion or file content.
Reflections on the User Experience
Through this project, I have come to appreciate the nuanced dynamics of working with AI as a software development assistant. While its ability to generate, analyze, and explain code is undeniably powerful, its reliance on user inputs and the challenges of context management highlight the need for improved workflows and tools.
One way to address these challenges is by leveraging features like the canvas tool, which offers a persistent workspace for tracking project files and their iterative states. Though I have not yet incorporated this into the current project, it represents a promising solution for mitigating issues related to context retention.
Can AI Perform Self-Introspection?
A particularly intriguing question is whether AI tools like ChatGPT can engage in self-introspection to reason about their limitations. While AI lacks true self-awareness, it can simulate aspects of introspection by recognizing patterns and explaining its own limitations. For instance, ChatGPT acknowledges its token constraints, context-switching challenges, and dependency on user guidance. This capability, though not genuine introspection, adds value by fostering a more transparent and effective human-machine collaboration.
Human-AI Collaboration in Debugging: A Tale of Two Days
Over the course of two consecutive days, I had contrasting experiences working with ChatGPT on a subtle but consequential bug in a web-based system. One day yielded rapid, collaborative problem-solving; the other spiraled into hours of unproductive iteration.
On the successful day, the problem was approached methodically. After identifying an inconsistency between two components of the system, we isolated the issue, implemented a retry mechanism, and confirmed the problem was due to a timing mismatch. The AI helped refine the fix, improve logging, and integrate it cleanly into the codebase. It was a model case of structured collaboration.
The other day—preceding the successful one—was less fruitful. Despite a diligent search for the root cause, we made little progress. Fatigue and accumulated context muddied the process. I was tired and unfocused, and the AI, overwhelmed by the tangled conversation history, struggled to distinguish relevant clues from conversational debris.
This revealed a key truth: ChatGPT performs best in short, well-structured exchanges. Like a human partner, it benefits from a clean slate and sharp focus. When sessions become cluttered, both clarity and effectiveness suffer. Resetting, rephrasing, and stepping back are not just human needs—they're good practices for human-AI collaboration too.
Interacting with an AI While Learning React: A Live Debugging Dialogue
There’s a special category of collaboration that emerges when a human learns a new framework while building a real app and consults an AI assistant in real-time. It’s not formal instruction, and it’s certainly not Stack Overflow copy-pasting. It’s more like asking your wise, occasionally verbose colleague to sit next to you as you reason through each step—and that colleague just happens to work at the speed of light and never sleeps.
As I immersed myself in React—a declarative, component-based labyrinth of state, props, hooks, and other abstract nouns—I found myself wrestling not just with code, but with clarity. In a recent exchange, I wanted to implement an input field that only allowed positive integers or positive decimals, depending on the context. Sounds simple, right? I thought so too. One minute I was tinkering with <input type="number">, and the next I was learning the intricacies of step="1", onInput, and the subtle difference between rejecting bad input and silently stripping it (a potentially disastrous bug if “1.00” becomes “100”).
What unfolded was not a one-shot answer, but a highly iterative design conversation: Should the input be rejected, corrected, reverted, highlighted, or blocked? Should we use useState or useMemo? Why not both? When does React rerender, and what happens to intermediate state?
Here’s where the AI shines. I could ask the same thing five times, rephrased differently, without embarrassment or delay. I could test a hypothesis, realize I didn’t quite understand disabled behavior, and return for clarification—getting code snippets, mental models, and implementation suggestions tailored to the evolving question.
And yet, even the AI had to be kept honest. I noticed repeated calls to parseFloat(value) when a single numericValue variable would suffice. The AI agreed—no excuses, no defensiveness. A human colleague might argue for elegance; the AI just said, “You’re absolutely right,” and moved on. Now that’s collaboration.
Perhaps most interesting was the discussion around getDigitsFromLabel(label). I called it once and stored it; the AI called it again in JSX. Was there a good reason? No. That insight alone made me reflect on the balance between abstraction and efficiency—something no documentation or tutorial ever seems to convey until you're deep in the trenches.
This kind of collaboration isn’t about code generation per se. It’s about shared reasoning, incremental understanding, and the willingness to rethink what we just wrote. It’s about building software the way one might sculpt—one chisel stroke at a time—with the AI handing you sharper tools and suggesting better angles.
Was the process perfect? No. Sometimes I had to guide the AI back on track, clarify ambiguities, or reject a suggestion that solved the wrong problem. But that’s exactly what I would do with any human collaborator. The difference is: the AI never loses patience, always responds in under a second, and—when prompted—can explain useMemo as if it’s tutoring a 5-year-old or writing a PhD thesis. My choice.
Conclusion: Human-AI Collaboration as Craft
My journey of using ChatGPT as a software development assistant has been both enlightening and thought-provoking. Its strengths in code generation, analysis, and iterative collaboration showcase the immense potential of AI in this field. At the same time, its challenges with context management and reliance on explicit instructions highlight areas for growth.
The real-world sessions—whether debugging bugs, learning React, or debating how many times a helper function should be called—reveal that AI tools work best when treated as full collaborators, not magic boxes. They thrive on structured input, mutual feedback, and occasionally being challenged by a sharp human eye.
This duality reflects the broader state of AI in software development: a powerful, evolving tool that complements human ingenuity but requires thoughtful interaction to reach its full potential. It is not the speed alone that defines its usefulness, but the rhythm of collaboration—the iterative, curious, back-and-forth shaping of ideas into software.
We love to hear your comments on this article.