Does anyone else feel like using AI coding assistants is often frighteningly similar to Homer’s work-from-home computer terminal from The Simpsons Season 7 Episode 7: King Sized Homer?
Homer sits at his computer in the living room and reads the screen.
Homer: “Check core temperature? Yes/no.”
Yes. Homer types Y-E-S
Homer: (reading) “Core temperature normal.” Hmm. Not too shabby.
Homer: (reading) “Vent radioactive gas?”
N O. Homer types N-O
Homer: (reading) “Venting prevents explos-i-on.” (laughs) Whoo. This is hard …
Okay, then. Yes. Homer types Y-E-S
He figures out that he can abbreviate his responses to “Y” and eventually outsources this job to a drinking bird toy, who just types “Y” all the time.
Perhaps predictably, this outsourcing causes a dangerous situation and Homer realizes the error of his ways moments before certain doom.
It can be super tempting to just let your AI coding buddy do all the work and to approve (or never even look at) everything that it churns out. Just like, as a dev, it might be tempting to skip that code review. And just like, as a leader, it might be tempting to not look deeply at the products that the team is producing.
After all, we’re busy!
Yet, every day I read a story about someone who set Cursor in YOLO mode and it destroyed their work.
It’s easy to blame the tool, but tools fail. Can we, as operators, do better?
For me, it’s applying ye olde Maker-Checker rule: let the AI generate … then review all the things, provide feedback, repeat. Beware temptation toward all-trust-but-no-verify…
… And maybe keep the drinking bird toy away from the keyboard!
Originally shared on LinkedIn, July 23, 2025.