>This is the most handwaving per paragraph I've ever seen.

Yes: "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language" if a fair summarization of my point.

Not sure the purpose of "whatever that means" that you added. It's clear what it means. Thought, casual language seems to be a problem for you. Do you only always discuss in formally verified proofs? If so, that's a you problem, not an us or LLM problem :)

>Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point.

I don't know who those "most people are". Most developers already hand those tasks to LLMs, and more will in the future, as it's a market/job pressure.

(I'm not saying it's good or good enough as a quality assessment. In fact, I don't particularly like it. But I am saying it's "good enough" as in, people will deem it good enough to be shipped).