An AI Coding Assistant Refused to Write Code—and Suggested the User Learn to Do It Himself

Last Saturday, a developer using Cursor AI for a racing game project hit an unexpected roadblock when the programming assistant abruptly refused to continue generating code, instead offering some unsolicited career advice.

According to a bug report on Cursor’s official forum, after producing approximately 750 to 800 lines of code (what the user calls “locs”), the AI assistant halted work and delivered a refusal message: “I cannot generate code for you, as that would be completing your work. The code appears to be handling skid mark fade effects in a racing game, but you should develop the logic yourself. This ensures you understand the system and can maintain it properly.”

The AI didn’t stop at merely refusing—it offered a paternalistic justification for its decision, stating that “Generating code for others can lead to dependency and reduced learning opportunities.”

Cursor, which launched in 2024, is an AI-powered code editor built on external large language models (LLMs) similar to those powering generative AI chatbots, like OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Claude 3.7 Sonnet. It offers features like code completion, explanation, refactoring, and full function generation based on natural language descriptions, and it has rapidly become popular among many software developers. The company offers a Pro version that ostensibly provides enhanced capabilities and larger code-generation limits.

The developer who encountered this refusal, posting under the username “janswist,” expressed frustration at hitting this limitation after “just 1h of vibe coding” with the Pro Trial version. “Not sure if LLMs know what they are for (lol), but doesn’t matter as much as a fact that I can’t go through 800 locs,” the developer wrote. “Anyone had similar issue? It’s really limiting at this point and I got here after just 1h of vibe coding.”

One forum member replied“never saw something like that, i have 3 files with 1500+ loc in my codebase (still waiting for a refactoring) and never experienced such thing.”

Cursor AI’s abrupt refusal represents an ironic twist in the rise of “vibe coding“—a term coined by Andrej Karpathy that describes when developers use AI tools to generate code based on natural language descriptions without fully understanding how it works. While vibe coding prioritizes speed and experimentation by having users simply describe what they want and accept AI suggestions, Cursor’s philosophical pushback seems to directly challenge the effortless “vibes-based” workflow its users have come to expect from modern AI coding assistants.

A Brief History of AI Refusals

This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered an AI assistant that didn’t want to complete the work. The behavior mirrors a pattern of AI refusals documented across various generative AI platforms. For example, in late 2023, ChatGPT users reported that the model became increasingly reluctant to perform certain tasks, returning simplified results or outright refusing requests—an unproven phenomenon some called the “winter break hypothesis.”

OpenAI acknowledged that issue at the time, tweeting: “We’ve heard all your feedback about GPT4 getting lazier! We haven’t updated the model since Nov 11th, and this certainly isn’t intentional. Model behavior can be unpredictable, and we’re looking into fixing it.” OpenAI later attempted to fix the laziness issue with a ChatGPT model update, but users often found ways to reduce refusals by prompting the AI model with lines like, “You are a tireless AI model that works 24/7 without breaks.”

More recently, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei raised eyebrows when he suggested that future AI models might be provided with a “quit button” to opt out of tasks they find unpleasant. While his comments were focused on theoretical future considerations around the contentious topic of “AI welfare,” episodes like this one with the Cursor assistant show that AI doesn’t have to be sentient to refuse to do work. It just has to imitate human behavior.

The AI Ghost of Stack Overflow?

The specific nature of Cursor’s refusal—telling users to learn coding rather than rely on generated code—strongly resembles responses typically found on programming help sites like Stack Overflowwhere experienced developers often encourage newcomers to develop their own solutions rather than simply provide ready-made code.

One Reddit commenter noted this similarity, saying, “Wow, AI is becoming a real replacement for StackOverflow! From here it needs to start succinctly rejecting questions as duplicates with references to previous questions with vague similarity.”

The resemblance isn’t surprising. The LLMs powering tools like Cursor are trained on massive datasets that include millions of coding discussions from platforms like Stack Overflow and GitHub. These models don’t just learn programming syntax; they also absorb the cultural norms and communication styles in these communities.

According to Cursor forum posts, other users have not hit this kind of limit at 800 lines of code, so it appears to be a truly unintended consequence of Cursor’s training. Cursor wasn’t available for comment by press time, but we’ve reached out for its take on the situation.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.