‘She Asks Me to Write Her AI Prompts’: Corporate Worker Trapped in Tech Nightmare

In the modern corporate ecosystem, artificial intelligence was supposed to make us faster, smarter, and more efficient. But for one tech worker, the proliferation of automated tools has created an entirely new kind of workplace purgatory: serving as a full-time human prompt engineer for a struggling colleague.

The nightmare began shortly after a new team member was brought on to handle backend development. After three months on the job, the new hire began dropping startling admissions when assignments hit friction, blithely telling peers that the AI couldn't figure out the solution and requesting extra time.

Read nextHe Aced Recruiter Calls for Years. Now 90% of Them Ghost Him — And Nobody Will Tell Him Why

Attempting to keep a critical project on track, a fellow developer stepped in to help. The worker drafted a customized, highly specific AI prompt, handed it over, and watched the issue get resolved in under five minutes. But that single act of kindness quickly turned into a daily operational trap.

Within days, the struggling employee began popping into her colleague's workspace constantly, demanding custom prompts for virtually every request. Rather than learning the underlying system architecture, she relied on her peer to translate basic technical duties into machine-readable commands. The dynamic not only created a massive productivity bottleneck, but it also resulted in severe, context-blind mistakes landing squarely in the company's core systems.

The situation has sparked intense debate among industry veterans over how to handle modern workplace incompetence created by artificial intelligence.

One camp of observers insists that management needs to be informed immediately. One professional noted that if an employee cannot understand basic project context or write their own queries, they simply cannot perform the job. Another commenter argued that drafting prompts for a peer isn't mentorship—it's performing two full-time roles while enabling someone else to shirk basic responsibilities. Paying someone to actively delay operations, they argued, is a clear management issue.

However, others urge caution, pointing out that corporate onboarding is notoriously broken. A veteran developer with over two decades of experience emphasized that three months is rarely enough time to master complex internal systems, noting that poor documentation often makes new hires look far less capable than they actually are. Another contributor suggested that instead of running to leadership, the developer should set firm boundaries and engage in structured pair-programming to teach problem-solving skills.

The dynamic highlights a growing paradox in corporate culture: while some workers are using automated tools to compress six-month project roadmaps into single weekends, others are using those same tools as a crutch to hide fundamental skill gaps.

Our podcast hosts take on this exact workplace saga to decide whether to report the behavior or mentor through it.