AI for enterprise software development needs a new approach. AI-powered coding tools have promised faster development, improved productivity, and intelligent automation. But despite these advancements, AI-generated code remains fundamentally flawed, posing serious risks to enterprise engineering teams. Research continues to highlight persistent accuracy, security, and maintainability issues, making AI-generated code unreliable for mission-critical applications.
A study comparing GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT found that AI-generated solutions contained errors up to 52% of the time, creating inefficiencies, bugs, and technical debt. Security vulnerabilities are just as concerning—in another study 40% of AI-generated code was found to have security flaws, exposing organizations to potential exploits and compliance risks. Additionally, research analyzing AI-assisted development has shown increased code churn and decreased code reuse, indicating that AI-generated code often lacks the structure and maintainability needed for long-term software development.
The problem isn’t just that code generated by generic AI assistants has mistakes—it’s that generic AI solutions will always make mistakes. AI models (LLMs) predict patterns based on training data rather than truly understanding code. This means they can generate code that looks correct but fails to function properly, a phenomenon known as hallucination. The more complex the coding problem, the more likely an AI model is to hallucinate.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are built to generate plausible responses, not to verify their correctness. A recent study from the National University of Singapore confirmed that all computable LLMs will hallucinate. The research concluded that hallucinations are not just a flaw in today’s AI models but an inherent limitation of the technology itself. No matter how large a model becomes or how much data it is trained on, hallucinations will persist.
The study also identified specific scenarios that induce hallucinations, many of which are common in software development queries. Boolean logic, combinatorial lists, subset sum problems, and propositional logic—all essential in enterprise software—are particularly susceptible to AI hallucination. When LLMs attempt to generate responses to these types of problems, they are more likely to fabricate information rather than return a correct answer.
This finding challenges the prevailing assumption that simply increasing model size, using model ensembles, or feeding AI more training data will lead to better results. These strategies have been ineffective in reducing hallucinations. Instead, the research suggests that the only viable mitigation strategies involve setting strict constraints on AI outputs through predefined guardrails and enhancing AI with external knowledge sources using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).
Many organizations attempting to reduce AI hallucinations have explored model fine-tuning and Mixture of Experts (MoE) approaches as potential solutions. While these methods can improve AI-generated outputs in some cases, they do not address the fundamental issue: LLMs are predictive models, not reasoning engines. No amount of fine-tuning can fully eliminate hallucinations because the underlying architecture of LLMs ensures that hallucinations will always occur when the model lacks direct knowledge of a given problem.
Fine-tuning involves retraining an LLM on a curated dataset to refine its responses for specific tasks or domains. This is a resource-intensive process requiring significant computational power, large amounts of labeled data, and repeated model updates. Even when fine-tuning is done successfully, it does not solve hallucinations—it simply adjusts the probability distribution of responses, making the model less likely to hallucinate in specific cases. However, as software development queries evolve and new technologies emerge, fine-tuned models quickly become outdated, requiring constant retraining to maintain relevance.
Similarly, the Mixture of Experts (MoE) approach attempts to improve LLM accuracy by routing queries to specialized sub-models trained on distinct areas of expertise. While MoE can enhance performance on domain-specific tasks, in practice, MoE models still hallucinate when they lack explicit knowledge, and they introduce additional complexity in model management, latency, and deployment at scale.
Rather than attempting to “fix” hallucinations at the model level—an approach that has consistently fallen short—a proven way to increase the quality of AI generated code is through implementing external control mechanisms that constrain the model’s behavior. This is where Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), guardrails, and fences come into play.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances LLMs by injecting real-time, contextually relevant knowledge into the AI’s response process. Instead of relying solely on pre-trained patterns, RAG allows the AI to retrieve factual, up-to-date information from trusted sources—whether from internal documentation, active repositories, or company-specific databases. This mitigates hallucinations by ensuring the AI has grounded knowledge before generating responses.
However, RAG alone is not enough. AI models must also operate within well-defined boundaries to prevent the generation of inaccurate or unauthorized outputs. This is where guardrails and fences come in.
Guardrails define acceptable behaviors and outputs for an AI model. These include security policies, compliance rules, and company-specific development standards that AI must adhere to when generating code. Guardrails ensure that AI-generated outputs align with organizational best practices and do not introduce compliance risks.
Fences go even further, placing hard constraints on what an AI model can and cannot do. Unlike guardrails, which provide soft guidelines, fences create strict, enforceable rules that prevent AI from engaging in certain behaviors altogether. For example, a fence could block AI from suggesting code that interacts with production databases, ensuring that AI does not generate solutions that introduce security vulnerabilities or non-compliant implementations.
Tabnine is the industry’s first fully context-aware AI development platform, designed to give enterprise engineering teams structured oversight and precise control over how AI generates and validates code. Unlike generic AI coding assistants, which operate as black-box models, Tabnine ensures that every AI-assisted interaction is governed by real-time context, retrieval-augmented knowledge, and enforceable rules that align with your organization’s development standards.
One of the most significant challenges in AI-assisted software development is ensuring that models generate code based on real-time, relevant data rather than outdated training sets. Generic AI coding tools rely solely on pre-trained models, which often means their knowledge is static, incomplete, and prone to hallucination. Tabnine solves this issue by implementing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which dynamically enhances AI responses with live project context before code is generated. By pulling information from active repositories, open files, recent terminal commands, and secure documentation sources, Tabnine ensures that AI-generated code is contextually accurate, reducing errors and improving maintainability. Furthermore, Tabnine’s context engine gives engineers full control over retrieval sources letting them optimize AI responses at the task, project, and repository level without requiring costly retraining, ensuring AI remains adaptable and relevant without ongoing maintenance burdens. Instead of relying on past patterns, AI now works within the live engineering environment, delivering recommendations based on real-world context rather than theoretical training data.
Beyond improving AI’s access to real-time knowledge, Tabnine also addresses the lack of governance and oversight that plagues traditional AI tools. Engineering teams cannot afford AI-generated code that ignores security policies, introduces compliance risks, or deviates from company-wide best practices. To solve this, Tabnine provides organization-defined guardrails that actively shape AI outputs, ensuring generated code aligns with internal coding standards, architectural principles, and security mandates. These guardrails act as automated quality checks, guiding AI responses to remain within established best practices while preventing developers from unknowingly introducing flawed or insecure code to codebases.
Explore recent posts
//Explore recent posts
//
3 -min read
4 -min read
7 -min read
More Thought Leadership
//6 -min read
6 -min read
5 -min read