The community portion that unironically think AI is good enough now, are mostly managers and non/semi-technical people, and engineers who do not engage in critical or complex problems. HN has always been too much of the velocity-alignment-synergy class of professional talkers; it's just so much more obvious now that they feel emboldened in false confidence.

Both your error and the OP's error is in imagining that the same people are saying both things. The "community" fallacy, which has been around for about 10 years now, that pretends that people with something in common (e.g. "uses HN") are somehow a community that thinks identically is completely wrong.

This community hasn't agreed on either of those things, just like it never agreed on good coding practices.

My opinion since college (8y ago) was that the best engineers are the ones who treat everything as halfway a people problem, even in low level code.

LLMs have been getting a lot better at coding.

If the "goalposts" represent what people generally think LLMs are capable of, they should be moving, right?

And complex, multi-part, long term efforts like building software and software companies always have numerous obstacles. When one is cleared, you wouldn't expect there to be no more, would you?

Your tone is complaining, but I just see people working in reality.

I'm still at the "AI can write code, but it needs to go through me and I need to deeply understand the generated code base" stage. It's still about the code, it has always been about the code and how well it satisfies the requirements.

Since I didn't agree with the premise of the top level post, I was scrolling down as far as possible to get to the second top level comment and yet here I am still scrolling.

From my perspective AI doesn't really accelerate me per se, it's more like the AI helps me avoid getting stuck.

Is it even a problem that so called goal posts are moved?

That's life.

Life changes and us along with it.

"Who Moved My Cheese?"