> it will also unlock pretty insane scaling and productivity

Insane scaling of bloat, bugs, and technical debt I'd say.

> We will manage it on either end via requirements and tests

It is so crazy that this is being touted as a sane strategy. When I was a much worse programmer, I tried to write a big complicated string manipulation function to take two types of scripts in a language and add diacritics. I had the requirements very clear. I had the tests very clearly with all the edge cases. But I didn't have a good and clear picture of how to attack the problem which was quite novel for me. As I got closer to passing all the tests it got exponentially more unruly and confusing. And nearing the end I was frantically changing little bits here and there wincing and praying and hoping the tests would pass. "Please work! Come on!" Then when I got close enough, I could never ever think about touching that mess again.

I was a below average programmer then throwing myself at some novel problem I didn't understand. Throwing LLMs that produce below average code at novel problems and relying on tests and requirements is not where we want to go to make real progress.

(Years later after much learning and coding myself I was able to redo the function in a totally different way. This time I actually understood how to attack the strange problem and made something clean, clear, and robust that just worked. The tests then become a secondary guardrail, not the main force of correction.)

We are seeing such a massive regression from what we've learned over the years of CS.

It's mostly (not entirely, but mostly) finding security issues in old human-written code. It'll eventually start running out of those.

From that standpoint, it's not a crazy setup security-wise. Maybe still crazy for development.

You're suggesting that LLMs get better at fixing bugs/vulnerabilities, but at the same time stop getting better at finding them? What if this difference is inherent and essential?

Volume..... <sigh>

It used to be considered a quality of good code that there would be less code, not more.

Some people always tryin to get the highscore on golf.

In fairness at root this has been going on for awhile. No one can keep up with the volume of machine code that modern more abstracted codebases produce.

We didn't stop using syntactic programming languages we used code to check code.

Not sure it's really crazy at all. It's been an abstraction for programmers probably since we stopped soldering transistors to each other.