Makes sense. Very hard for humans to keep up with LLM-generated code. But LLMs/Agents have no problem with this. So they are using the dev style that would drive their business towards generating more money. A funny concept for a non-profit organization.
I don't see how buggy software directly leads to generating more money? A company being successful doesn't somehow magically make them infallible, 100% rational or immune to making mistakes (as you are implying).
I don't know why people keep harping on buggy software.. it really is the average not the exception. I mean we see this with all the defects in existing software that agents find.
I love how people all pretend that they and most engineers are god like programmers. Sure, some people are really good. My 30 years of experience say that is like 5%, maybe if you are at google or a really good start up, that can creep up to 30-50%.
By far the majority of engineers are not elegant or even really craftsman like. Add to this that unless you are working on a pet project you are usually neck deep in something that has had teams working in it for years.
It creates situations where most engineers don't really know what the code base does below the surface area where they are making feature changes. So work gets cobbled on or patched in where people are comfortable making changes.
All I can say is I would much rather have 3 open Opus 5.5 instances than a team of 3 working for me if we are only talking about delivering high quality code. I don't think that is the only value of engineers, but I think we are at a point where the models have way exceeded average engineer ability. There are still tendencies for "compatability everything" and "don't rock the boat" in the current frontier LLMs that can create architectural issues, but if you know what to look for when working, it isn't generally an issue.
I mean just remember how mush everyone complained about buggy games or MacOs or whatever before LLMs even came around.
> as you are implying
I am not implying that at all. All I'm saying is that humans can't keep up with LLM/agent rates of code generation but agents come, so what is unusable for humans is ok for LLMs.
And LLMs being required is very profitable to those who sell LLMs.
Never did I imply any bugs
> Very hard for humans to keep up with LLM-generated code
Not at all. It's hard to keep up with lines of code per day, i.e. quantity.
It's not difficult for humans to keep up with the quality, and produce far superior quality code by writing it themselves or instructing an LLM what exactly to implement, down to each function's API surface (if typing is the bottleneck).
A lot of you people are forgetting that there's an engineering aspect to programming, and LLMs are really really really terrible at it out of the box.
Let's say you can let AI design and 3D print 1 large real-life bridge per week. Would you say that humans can't keep up? Or would you point out that there's a difference between what civil engineers do and what an LLM with a 3D printer does?