How is that different compared to a human dev that would miss bugs?
They should try to fix technical debt before going to the next round. Of course Claude can probably also do this.
I would be pissed off too if I was a hypocrite who was so sure AI was total garbage and was now at the same time needing to use claude on a daily basis.
A lot of developers are going through an identity crisis where their skills are becoming more and more useless and they need to attack comments like the above in a desperate but futile attempt to make themselves matter.
The problem with that is that as you build you learn things, and that changes the plan. Consequently those mistakes are inevitable. What you should do is an approach where you have a high level plan up front, and detailed plans about the specific features as you need them. Mistakes will still happen but you'll be able to see them, and correct them, faster.
If you're a novice, or even intermediate, use AI in a feedback kind of way, see if it can pinpoint and explain problems with your current code and offer feedback/recommendations. Not code, but dot point human language feedback like you'd get from a senior dev.
If the AI is writing code that is beyond what you could produce yourself, you have no business trusting the code the AI produces. This is because, as anyone who can produce high level code will tell you, AI is wrong too frequently to blindly trust. You have to engage critically with output. Full auto is a disaster waiting to happen.
The problem is, for many, good looking but fundamentally flawed code is indistinguishable from the real deal, and so they simply outsource their ability to critically think to a thing that simply cannot. This is a big problem and the evidence for this claim is littered throughout this comment section.