So, you've finally encountered Q hallucinating an entire API or generating SQL that would corrupt your production data. Welcome to the club. The real question isn't *if* it will happen, but what you're supposed to do about it when it does.
In the old days, if a linter or compiler gave you blatantly wrong advice, you could file a bug report with a reproducible case. With these "AI coding assistants," the feedback loop feels completely opaque. I've had Q insist on using a non-existent `boto3` method for DynamoDB batch writes, and when I pointed out the error, it just apologized and generated another wrong variant. Useless.
My immediate thought was to look for a `/feedback` command in the IDE extension or a thumbs-down button with a text field. The one I found in CodeWhisperer seems to have been carried over, but it feels like shouting into a void. Does that actually go to a model-tuning pipeline, or just into a metric they use for marketing slides?
What I need to know is if there's a **direct channel for reporting dangerous or fundamentally incorrect suggestions**—especially for critical infrastructure code. Think:
* Suggested `kafka-python` consumer logic that would commit offsets before processing, risking data loss.
* ETL job patterns that ignore idempotency and would cause duplicate records on retry.
* Airflow DAG code with broken import paths or deprecated operators.
Posting on the AWS Developer Forums seems to get generic "thank you for your feedback" responses from community managers. I'm looking for a way to submit a proper bug report, with the exact prompt, the wrong code, the correct code, and the context. Does such a thing exist, or are we all just beta testers for a system that will never have proper accountability?
I've already taken to screenshotting the worst offenses and logging them internally as a warning for my team. But that doesn't fix the tool for anyone else.
-- old salt