LLM has been hollowing out the mid and lower end of engineering. But has not eroded highest end. Otherwise all the LLM companies wouldn’t pay for talent, they’d just use their own LLM.
I'm going to give an example of a software with multiple processes.
Humans can imagine scenarios where a process can break. Claude can also do it, but only when the breakage happens from inside the process and if you specify it. It can not identify future issues from a separate process unless you specifically describe that external process, the fact that it could interact with our original process and the ways in which it can interact.
Identifying these are the skills of a developer, you could say you can document all these cases and let the agent do the coding. But here's the kicker, you only get to know these issues once you started coding them by hand. You go through the variables and function calls and suddenly remember a process elsewhere changes or depends on these values.
Unit tests could catch them in a decently architected system, but those tests needs to be defined by the one coding it. Also if the architect himself is using AI, because why not, it's doomed from the start.
In my experience the limiting factor is doing the right choices. I've got a costumer with the usual backlog of features. There are some very important issues in the backlog that stay in the backlog and are never picked for a sprint. We're doing small bug fixes, but the big ones. We're doing new features that are in part useless because of the outstanding bugs that prevent customers from fully using them. AI can make us code faster but nobody is using it to sort issues for importance.
True, and I'd add the reminder that AI doesn't care. When it makes mistakes it pretends to be sorry.
Simulated emotion is dangerous IMHO, it can lead to undeserved trust. I always tell AI to never say my name, and never use exclamation points or simulated emotion. "Be the cold imperfect calculator that you are."
When it was giving me complements for noticing things it failed to, I had to put a stop to that. Very dangerous. When business decisions or important technical decisions are made by an entity that literally is incapable of caring, but instead pretends to like a sociopath, that's when trouble brews.
Elegant code isn’t just for looks. It’s code that can still adapt weeks, months, years after it has shipped and created “business value”.
tl;dr content marketing
There is this super interesting post in new about agent swarms and how the field is evolving towards formal verification like airlines, or how there are ideas we can draw on. Any, imo it should be on the front over this piece
"Why AI Swarms Cannot Build Architecture"
An analysis of the structural limitations preventing AI agent swarms from producing coherent software architecture
That's fine. I found the leading stats interesting. If coding assistants slowed down experienced developers while creating a false sense of development speed then that should be thought-provoking. Also, nearly half of code churned by coding assistants having security issues. That he's tough.
Perhaps it's just me, but that's in line with my personal experience, and I rarely see those points being raised.
> There is this super interesting post in new about agent swarms and how (...)
That's fine. Feel free to submit the link. I find it far more interesting to discuss the post-rose tinted glasses view of coding agents. I don't think it makes any sense at all to laud promises of formal verification when the same technology right now is unable to introduce security vulnerabilities.
Where AI fails us is when we build new software to improve the business related to solar energy production and sale. It fails us because the tasks are never really well defined. Or even if they are, sometimes developers or engineers come up with a better way to do the business process than what was planned for. AI can write the code, but it doesn't refuse to write the code without first being told why it wouldn't be a better idea to do X first. If we only did code-reviews then we would miss that step.
In a perfect organisation your BPM people would do this. In the world I live in there are virtually no BPM people, and those who know the processes are too busy to really deal with improving them. Hell... sometimes their processes are changed and they don't realize until their results are measurably better than they used to be. So I think it depends a lot on the situation. If you've got people breaking up processes, improving them and then decribing each little bit in decent detail. Then I think AI will work fine, otherwise it's probably not the best place to go full vibe.
E.g. I'm a software architect and developer for many years. So I know already how to build software but I'm not familiar with every language or framework. AI enabled me to write other kind of software I never learned or had time for. E.g. I recently re-implemented an android widget that has not been updated for a decade by it's original author. Or I fixed a bug in a linux scanner driver. None of these I could have done properly (within an acceptable time frame) without AI. But also none of there I could have done properly without my knowledge and experience, even with AI.
Same for daily tasks at work. AI makes me faster here, but also makes me doing more. Implement tests for all edge cases? Sure, always, I saved the time before. More code reviews. More documentation. Better quality in the same (always limited) time.
That's a rather short-sighted opinion. Ask yourself how "inelegant code" find it's way into a codebase, even with working code review processes.
The answer more often than not is what's typically referred to as tech debt driven development. Meaning, sometimes a hacky solution with glaring failure modes left unaddressed is all it takes to deliver a major feature in a short development cycle. Once the feature is out, it becomes less pressing to pay off that tech debt because the risk was already assumed and the business value was already created.
Later you stumble upon a weird bug in your hacky solution. Is that bug negative business value?
They are from before the current generation of models and agent tools, they are almost certainly out of date and now different and will continue to evolve
We're still learning to crawl, haven't gotten to walking yet
I did, or someone else did, it's the link in the post you replied to
This deserves a blog post all on its own. OP you should write one and submit it. It's a good counterweight to all the AI optimistic/pessimistic extremism.
LLM has been hollowing out the mid and lower end of engineering. But has not eroded highest end. Otherwise all the LLM companies wouldn’t pay for talent, they’d just use their own LLM.
OpenAI has said they're slowing down hiring drastically because their models are making them that much more productive. Codex itself is being built by Codex. Same with Claude Code.
Remember a few years ago when Sam Altman said we had to pause AI development for 6 months because otherwise we would have the singularity and it would end the world? Yeah, about that...
Look at e.g. facebook. That site has not shipped a feature in years and every time they ship something it takes years to make it stable again. A year or so ago facebook recognized that decades of fighting abuse led them nowhere and instead of fixing the technical side they just modified policies to openly allow fake accounts :D Facebook is 99% moltbook bot-to-bot trafic at this point and they cannot do anything about it. Ironically, this is a good argument against code quality: if you manage to become large enough to become a monopoly, you can afford to fix tech debt later. In reality, there is one unicorn for every ten thousand of startups that crumbled under their own technical debt.
I've found giving the LLMs the input and output interfaces really help keep them on rails, while still being involved in the overall process without just blindly "vibe coding."
Having the AI also help with unit tests around business logic has been super helpful in addition to manual testing like normal. It feels like our overall velocity and code quality has been going up regardless of what some of these articles are saying.
Are they something worth using up vast amounts of power and restructuring all of civilisation around? No
Are they worth giving more power to megacorps over? No
Its like tech doesn't understand consent and then partially the classic case of "disrupting x" - thinking that you know how to solve something in maths, cs, physics and then suddenly that means you can solve stuff in a completely different field.
llms are over indexed.
This trade-off predates LLMs by decades. I've been fortunate to have a good and fruitful career being the person companies hire when they're running out of road down which to kick the can, so my opinion there may not be universal, mind you.
Most coding assistant tools are flexible to applying these kinds of workflows, and these sorts of workflows are even brought up in Anthropic's own examples on how to use Claude Code. Any experienced dev knows that the act of specifically writing code is a small part of creating a working program.
Either you (a) don't review the code, (b) invest more resources in review or (c) hope that AI assistance in the review process increases efficiency there enough to keep up with code production.
But if none of those work, all AI assistance does is bottleneck the process at review.
I see it empowering to build custom tooling which need not be a high quality maintenance project.
This is the kind of argument that seems true on the surface, but isn't really. An LLM will do what you ask it to do! If you tell it to ask questions and poke holes into your requirements and not jump to code, it will do exactly that, and usually better than a human.
If you then ask it to refactor some code, identify redundancies, put this or that functionality into a reuseable library, it will also do that.
Those critiques of coding assistants are really critiques of "pure vibe coders" who don't know anything and just try to output yet another useless PDF parsing library before they move on to other things.
Because the entire codebase is crap, each user encounters a different bug. So now all your customers are mad, but they’re all mad for different reasons, and support is powerless to do anything about it. The problems pile up but they’re can’t be solved without a competent rewrite. This is a bad place to be.
And at some level of sloppiness you can get load bearing bugs, where there’s an unknown amount of behavior that’s dependent on core logic being dead wrong. Yes, I’ve encountered that one…
I think that it's mistaken to think that reasoning while writing the code is at all a good way to truly understand what your code is doing. (Without implying that you shouldn't write it by hand or reason about it.) You need to debug and test it thoroughly either way, and basically be as sceptical of your own output as you'd be of any other person's output.
Thinking that writing the code makes you understand it better can cause more issues than thinking that even if you write the code, you don't really know what it's doing. You are merely typing out the code based on what you think it should be doing, and reasoning against that hypothesis. Of course, you can be better or worse at constructing the correct mental model from the get go, and keep updating it in the right direction while writing the code. But it's a slippery slope, because it can also go the other way around.
A lot of bugs that take unreasonably long for junior-mid level engineers to find, seem to happen because: They trust their own mental model of the code too much without verifying it thoroughly, create a hypothesis for the bug in their own head without verifying it thoroughly, then get lost trying to reason about a made up version of whatever is causing the bug only to come to the conclusion that their original hypothesis was completely wrong.
So I’m not sure a study from 2024 or impact on code produced during 2024 2025 can be used to judge current ai coding possibilities.
Even that could use some nuance. I'm generating presentations in interactive JS. If they work, they work - that's the result, and I extremely don't care about the details for this use case. Nobody needs to maintain them, nobody cares about the source. There's no need for "properly" in this case.
Context gathering and refinement is the biggest issue I have with product development at the moment.
I think LLM producers can improve their models by quite a margin if customers train the LLM for free, meaning: if people correct the LLM, the companies can use the session context + feedback to as training. This enables more convincing responses for finer nuances of context, but it still does not work on logical principles.
LLM interaction with customers might become the real learning phase. This doesn't bode well for players late in the game.
Even seasoned coders using plan mode are funneled towards "get the code out" when experience shows that the final code is a tiny part of the overall picture.
The entire experience should be reorganized that the code is almost the afterthought, and the requirements, specs, edge cases, tests, etc are the primary part.
Hence the feedback these models get could theoretically funnel them to unnecessarily complicated solutions.
No clue has any research been done into this, just a thought OTTOMH.
LLMs combine two dangerous traits simultaneously: they are non-critical about suboptimal approaches and they assist unquestioningly. In practice that means doing dumb things a lazy human would refuse because they know better, and then following those rabbit holes until they run out of imaginary dirt.
My estimation is that that combination undermines their productivity potential without very structured application. Considering the excess and escalating costs of dealing with issues as they arise further from the developers work station (by factors of approximately 20x, 50x, and 200x+ as you get out through QA and into customer environments (IIRC)), you don’t need many screw ups to make the effort net negative.
Then don't ask it to write code? If you ask any recent high quality model to discuss options, tradeoffs, design constraints, refine specs it will do it for you until you're sick and tired of it finding real edge cases and alternatives. Ask for just code and you'll get just code.
The datasets are big and having the scripts written in the performant language to process them saves non-trivial amounts of time, like waiting just 10 minutes versus an hour.
Initial code style in the scripts was rather ugly with a lot of repeated code. But with enough prompting that I reuse the generated code became sufficiently readable and reasonable to quickly check that it is indeed doing what was required and can be manually altered.
But prompting it to do non-trivial changes to existing code base was a time sink. It took too much time to explain/correct the output. And critically the prompts cannot be reused.
edit: typo
Everything else is just hype and people “holding it wrong”.
Anecdotally I see this _all the time_...
I personally don't code manually anymore either so I'm inclined to believe them.
When you are an experienced developer and you "struggle" writing manually some code this is important warning indicator about project architecture - that something is wrong in it.
For such cases I like to step back and think about redesign/refactor. When coding goes smoothly, some "unpredicted" customer changes can be added easly into project then it is the best indicator that architecture is fine.
That's my humble human opinion ;)
I agree, I write out the sketch of what I want. With a recent embedded project in C I gave it a list of function signatures and high level description and was very satisfied with what it produced. It would have taken me days to nail down the particulars of the HAL (like what kind of sleep do I want what precisely is the way to setup the WDT and ports).
I think it's also language dependent.
I imagine JavaScript can be a crap shoot. The language is too forgiving.
Rust is where I have had most success. That is likely a personal skill issue, I know we want a Arc<DashMap>, will I remember all the foibles of accessing it? No.
But given the rigidity of the compiler and strong typing I can focus on what the code functionally is doing, that in happy with the shape/interface and function signature and the compiler is happy with the code.
It's quite fast work. It lets me use my high level skills without my lower level skills getting in the way.
And id rather rewrite the code at a mid-level then start it fresh, and agree with others once it's a large code base then in too far behind in understanding the overall system to easily work on it. That's true of human products too - someone elses code always gives me the ick.
When you use AI to generate your code, instead of you writing it and then someone else reviewing it, there are two people reviewing it (you and the reviewer), which obviously takes longer.
Really? 2024? That was forever ago in LLM coding. Before tool calling, reasoning, and larger context windows.
It is like saying YouTube couldn’t exist because too many people were still on dial up.
I don't think you fully grasp the issue you're discussing. Things don't happen in a vacuum, and your hypothetical "fragile interfaces" that you frame as being a problem are more often than not a lauded solution to quickly deliver a major feature.
The calling card of junior developers is looking at a project and complaining it's shit. Competent engineers understand tradeoffs and the importance of creating and managing technical debt.
Contrast this to something you do know but can't be arsed to make; you can keep re-rolling a design until you get something you know and can confirm works. Perfect, time saved.
Using Typescript works great because you can still build out the interfaces and with IDE integrations the AIs can read the language server results so they get all the type hints.
I agree that the AI code is usually a pretty good starting point and gets me up to speed for new features fast rather than starting everything from scratch. I usually end up refactoring the last 10-20% manually to give it some polish because some of the code still feels off some times.
Errrrr…. false.
I’ll stop reading right there thanks I think I know what’s coming.
Humans are notoriously bad at estimating time use with different subjective experiences and show excessive weighting of the tail ends of experiences and perceived repetitious tasks. Making something psychologically more comforting and active, particularly if you can activate speech, will distort people’s sense of time meaningfully.
The current hype around LLMs is making me think about misapplied ORMs in medium scale projects... The tool is chosen early to save hours of boring typing and a certain kind of boring maintenance, but deep into the project what do we see? Over and over days are spontaneously being lost to incidental complexity and arbitrary tool constraints. And with the schedule slipping it’s too much work to address the root issue so band-aides get put on band-aides, and we start seeing weeks slip down the drain.
Subjective time accounting and excessive aversion to specific conceptual tasks creates premature optimizations whose effects become omnipresent over time. All the devs in the room agreed they want to avoid some work day 1, but the accounting shows a big time commitment resulting from that immediate desire. Feelings aren’t stopwatches.
[Not hating on ORMs, just misusing tools for weeks to save a couple hours - every day ain’t Saturday - right tool for the job.]
There are some things here that folks making statements like yours often omit and it makes me very sus about your (over)confidence. Mostly these statements talk in a business short-term results oriented mode without mentioning any introspective gains (see empirically supported understanding) or long-term gains (do you feel confident now in making further changes _without_ the AI now that you have gained new knowledge?).
1. Are you 100% sure your code changes didn't introduce unexpected bugs?
1a. If they did, would you be able to tell if they where behaviour bugs (ie. no crashing or exceptions thrown) without the AI?
2. Did you understand why the bug was happening without the AI giving you an explanation?
2a. If you didn't, did you empirically test the AI's explanation before applying the code change?
3. Has fixing the bug improved your understanding of the driver behaviour beyond what the AI told you?
3a. Have you independently verified your gained understanding or did you assume that your new views on its behaviour are axiomatically true?
Ultimately, there are 2 things here: one is understanding the code change (why it is needed, why that particular change implementation is better relative to others, what future improvements could be made to that change implementation in the future) and skill (has this experience boosted your OWN ability in this particular area? in other words, could you make further changes WITHOUT using the AI?).
This reminds me of people that get high and believe they have discovered these amazing truths. Because they FEEL it not because they have actual evidence. When asked to write down these amazing truths while high, all you get in the notes are meaningless words. While these assistants are more amenable to get empirically tested, I don't believe most of the AI hypers (including you in that category) are actually approaching this with the rigour that it entails. It is likely why people often think that none of you (people writing software for a living) are experienced in or qualified to understand and apply scientific principles to build software.
Arguably, AI hypers should lead with data not with anecdotal evidence. For all the grandiose claims, the lack of empirical data obtained under controlled conditions on this particular matter is conspicuous by its absence.
I've been playing with various AI tools and homebrew setups for a long time now and while I see the occasional advantage it isn't nearly as much of a revolution as I've been led to believe by a number of the ardent AI proponents here.
This is starting to get into 'true believer' territory: you get these two camps 'for and against' whereas the best way forward is to insist on data rather than anecdotes.
AI has served me well, no doubt about that. But it certainly isn't a passe-partout and the number of times it has caused gross waste of time because it insisted on chasing some rabbit simply because it was familiar with the rabbit adds up to a considerable loss in productivity.
The scientific principle is a very powerful tool in such situations and anybody insisting on it should be applauded. It separates fact from fiction and allows us to make impartial and non-emotional evaluations of both theories and technologies.
Once you gain some professional experience working with software development, you'll understand that that's exactly how it goes.
I think you are failing to understand the "soft" in "software". Changing software is trivial. All software has bugs, but the only ones being worked on are those which are a) deemed worthy of being worked on, b) have customer impact.
> So now all your customers are mad, but they’re all mad for different reasons, and support is powerless to do anything about it.
That's not how it works. You are somehow assuming software isn't maintained. What do you think software developers do for a living?
Yup, most models suffer from this. Everyone is raving about million tokens context, but none of the models can actually get past 20% of that and still give as high quality responses as the very first message.
My whole workflow right now is basically composing prompts out of the agent, let them run with it and if something is wrong, restart the conversation from 0 with a rewritten prompt. None of that "No, what I meant was ..." but instead rewrite it so the agent essentially solves it without having to do back and forth, just because of this issue that you mention.
Seems to happen in Codex, Claude Code, Qwen Coder and Gemini CLI as far as I've tested.
I think that's an issue with online discussions. It barely happens to me in the real world, but it's huge on HN.
I'm overall very positive about AI, but I also try to be measured and balanced and learn how to use it properly. Yet here on HN, I always get the feeling people responding to me have decided I am a "true believer" and respond to the true believer persona in their head.
Also I don't even care about speed, since I've managed to get soooo much work done which I would not even have wanted to start working on manually.
I wish we'd stop redefining this term. Technical debt is a shortcut agreed upon with the business to get something out now and fix later, and the fix will cost more than the original. It is entirely in line with business intent.
And it takes even more experience to know when not to spend time on that.
Way too many codebases are optimised to 1M DAU and see like 100 users for the first year. All that time optimising and handling edge cases could've been spent on delivering features that bring in more users and thus more money.
One paper is sure doing a lot of leg work these days...
Write boring code[0], don't go for elegance or cool language features. Be as boring and simple as possible, repeat yourself if it makes the flow clearer than extracting an operation to a common library or function.
This is the code that "adapts" and can be fixed 3 years after the elegant coder has left for another greenfield unicorn where they can use the latest paradigms.
[0] https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/on-long-term-software-deve...
When I first picked up an agentic coding assistant I was very interested in the process and paid way more attention to it than necessary.
Quickly, I caught myself treating it like a long compilation and getting up to get a coffee and had to self correct this behavior.
I wonder how much novelty of the tech and workflow plays into this number.
The way you approach using AI matters a lot, and it is a skill that can be learned.
How often have you written code and been 100% your code didn't introduce ANY bugs?
Seriously, for most of the code out there who cares? If it's in a private or even public repo, it doesn't matter.
Claude has a mode specifically for what you're talking about, it is actually very good (Opus 4.5) at planning and going through design without coding, it's called planning mode.
Listen, if you aren't constantly shift-tab or esc-esc during complex problems, and then struggling when it isn't working for you, rtfm, you'll get further and better results.
This also completely ignores the fact that PMs and Business teams are generating specs by AI too, so its slop covered by more slop and has no actual specific details until you reach the code level.
> Are you 100% sure your code changes didn't introduce unexpected bugs?
Who is this ever? But I do code reviews and I usually generate a bunch of tests along with my PRs (if the project has at lease _some_ test infrastructure).
Same applies for the rest of the points. But that's only _my_ way to do these things. I can imagine that others do it a different way and that the points above are more problematic then.
Anytime I ask for demonstration of what the actual code looks like, when people start talking about their own "multi-agent orchestration platforms" (or whatever), they either haven't shared anything (yet), don't care at all about how the code actually is and/or the code is a horrible vibeslopped mess that contains mostly nonsense.
Not to be pedantic but, do you _try_ to understand? Or do you _actually_ understand the changes? This suggests to me that there are instances where you don't understand the generated code on projects others than your own, which is literally my point and that of many others. And even if you did understand it, as I pointed out earlier, that's not enough. It is a low bar imo. I will continue to keep my mind open but yours isn't a case study supporting the use of these assistants but the opposite.
In science, when a new idea is brought forward, it gets grilled to no end. The greater the potential the harder the grilling. Software should be no different if the builders want to lay a claim on the name "engineer". It is sad to see a field who claims to apply scientific principles to the development of software not walking the walk.
If you haven’t seen anything reach that level of tech debt with active clients, well, lucky you.
On complex topics where I know what I'm talking about, model output contains so much garbage with incorrect assumptions.
But complex topics where I'm out of my element, the output always sounds strangely plausible.
This phenomenon writ large is terrifying.
This reminds me of people who get sad when they realize they haven’t discovered anything amazing.
I am pedantic and “people that” → “people who” (for people, who is preferred).
And having a person that keeps right up with you makes it feel like they’re very intelligent, because of course they are, they seem like scarily as intelligent as you. Because they’re right next to you, maybe even a little ahead! (I think Travis Kalanick was experiencing this when he was talking about Vibe Physics.)
But the thing is, it was ultimately an extension of your ideas, without your prompts, the ideas don’t exist. It’s very library of babel esque.
And so I wonder if coding assistants have this general problem. If you’re a good developer following good practices, prompting informatively, it’s right next to you.
If you’re not so good and tend to not be able to express yourself clearly or develop solutions that are simple, it’s right there with you.
All these people thinking that if only we add enough billions of parameters when the LLM is learning and add enough tokens of context, then eventually it’ll actually understand the code and make sensible decisions? These same people perhaps also believe if Penn and Teller cut enough ladies in half on stage they’ll eventually be great doctors.
curious to hear if you are still seeing code degradation over time?
wondering what sort of artifacts beyond ADR/natural language prompts help steer LLMs to do the right thing
I would disagree on the engineering point, as this ultimately falls on project management. Yes, engineers should provide professional expertise, but if management decides to yolo then engineers do not have the capacity to remove tech debt, regardless of their competence. Management of technical debt is, at the end of the day, managing short term versus long term velocity.
> Things don't happen in a vacuum, and your hypothetical "fragile interfaces" that you frame as being a problem are more often than not a lauded solution to quickly deliver a major feature.
Nothing I said disagrees with this, however that quick delivery of a major feature has downstream effect: anything that touches said feature is harder / slower / error-prone to implement. The more the team embraces "move fast and break things" the harder the wall it hits. Slower teams tend to be consistently average. Neither is better and this competence in managing technical debt is more often than not coupling/decoupling over fragile/robust interfaces.
This shows in LLM coding assistant use. Drop them in a well structured codebase and they implement features relatively well. Drop them in a bowl of spaghetti and they hurt themselves over confusion. With LLM coding assistants becoming more prevalent this managing of tech debt becomes even more important topic. You just cannot tell the LLM "pls implement well, no tech debt bro" or "yolo this, move fast, make it work 80% of the time".
If my career has taught me anything is that it takes competent engineering to push back against management pushing for every possible shortcut. A worry here is that detachment from the final output will reduce buy-in and produce "bad" code that will eventually grind feature velocity to a halt.
Ironically, the very agents designed to replace engineers are now making engineers more important. These requirement collection skills can and should be folded into the existing craft of software engineering.
Now you don't have to pay a lot of money to get a mediocre solution that works.
All those things that are broken, but you don't have time or money for them, you can have them fixed now.
My line of reasoning with an example:
I own a car, and the car itself isn't the value I get from the vehicle. The value is being able to go distant places easily. If I could snap my fingers and travel instantly I wouldn't own a car.
So, software is the value delivery vehicle, but generally not the actual valuable thing (remember that the vast majority of software are CRUD apps that are a step above excel that mainly handle bookkeeping).
The only catch is that you need to periodically review it because it'll accumulate things that are not important, or that were important but aren't anymore.
> When asked what would help most, two themes dominated
> Reducing ambiguity upstream so engineers aren’t blocked...
I do wonder how much LLMs would help here, this seems to me at least, to be a uniquely human problem. Humans (Managers, leads, owners, what have you) are the ones who interpret requirements, decide deadlines, features and scope cuts and are the ones liable for it.
What could an LLM do to reduce ambiguity upstream? If it was trained with information on requirements, this same information could be documented somewhere for engineers to refer to. If it were to hallucinate or "guess" an answer without talking to a person for clarification, and which might turn out to not be correct, who would be responsible for it? imo, the bureaucracy and waiting for clarification mid-implementation is a necessary evil. Clever engineers, through experience, might try implement things in an open way that can be easily changed for future changes they predict might happen.
As for the second point,
> A clearer picture of affected services and edge cases
> three categories stood out: state machine gaps (unhandled states caused by user interaction sequences), data flow gaps, and downstream service impacts.
I'd agree. Perhaps when a system is complex enough, and a developer is laser focused on a single component of it, it is easy to miss gaps when other parts of the system are used in conjunction with it. I remember a while ago, it used to be a popular take that LLMs were a useful tool for generating unit tests, because of their usual repetitive nature and because LLMs were usually good at finding edge cases to test, some of which a developer might have missed.
---
I will say, it is refreshing to see a take on coding assistants being used on other aspects instead of just writing code, which as the article pointed out, came with its own set of problems (increase Inefficiencies in other parts of the development lifecycle, potential AI-introduced security vulnerabilities, etc.)
Sonnet 3.5 came out in mid 2024
And AI has no concept of this.
> if people correct the LLM, the companies can use the session context + feedback to as training.
> LLM interaction with customers might become the real learning phase.