> This is often the part that slows down software development. Trying to figure out what a vague, title only, feature request actually means.

But that is exactly what Software Engineering is!. It's 2026 and the notion that you can get detailed enough requirements and specifications that you can one-shot a perfect solution needs to die.

In my experience AI has made us able to iterate on features or ideas much faster. Now most of the friction comes from alignment and coordination with other teams. My take is that to accelerate processes we should reduce coordination overhead and empower individuals and teams to make decisions and execute on them.

If that's true, you might be able to increase throughout by parallelising more of the work.

When I was working we used to get requirements that literally said things like, "Get data and give it to the user". No definition of what data is, where its stored, or in what format to return it. We would then spend a significant amount of time with the product person trying to figure out what they really wanted.

In order to get good results with LLMs we need to do something similar. Vague requirements get vague results.

Ideation: Throw ideas back & forth, cross reference with knowledge bases, generate design documents. Documentation: Generate large parts of docs. Development: Clear. Deployment: Generate deployment manifests, tooling around testing, knowledge around cloud platforms.

Every single step can be done better & faster with AI. Not all of them, but a lot.

Even development. Yes some part of your job involves understanding the problem better than anyone & making solutions. But some parts are also purely chore. If you know you keed a button doing X, then designing that button, placing it, figuring out edge cases with hover & press states, connecting to the backend etc - this is chore that can be skipped. Same principle applies to almost all steps.

On the other hand, it feels like we've been over this tens of times recently, on HN specifically and IRL at work. Another blog post isn't going to convince leaders that this is how the world works when they are socially and financially incentivized to pretend like AI really will speed things up. So now I just wait for their AI projects to fail or go as slowly as previous projects and hope they learn something.

But for a small studio, or independent developer, LLMs are a big game changer. Being able to do a mediocre job at 5 people's jobs is a huge leap over trying to get by without those jobs - relying on third party assets or other sorts of content, or even worse - doing a really awful job of trying to improv those jobs. See the UI of basically any program ever that was clearly laid out by a programmer and not a designer. Or there's the whole trying to rip off stuff from dribbble, but lacking the skills to do so. Whereas with AI, you can suddenly competently rip off everything and everybody - it's basically their entire MO.

This naturally involves a lot of tradeoffs and politics - senior engineers know to avoid adding 'weight' to their airframes and fight hard to avoid adding scope to the systems they're responsible for or divergence from their intended direction of travel. So compromises have to be struck or escalations to management to choose between priorities have to play out.

Maybe AI solves that as well but that is a lot more difficult lift.

Eg: I had a product manager say to me that he envisions a future where any meeting with stakeholders that does not result in an interactive prototype by the end of the meeting would be considered a failure. This feels directionally correct to me.

The other thing I expect to see is Vibecoding being the "Excel 2.0" where it allows significant self-serve of building interactive apps that's engaged in a continual war with IT to turn them into something with better security guarantees, proper access control & logging, scalability, change management etc.

But the larger historical point here is that every revolutionary transition produces, in the early stages, "Steam Horses". The invention of the steam engine had people imagining that the future of transportation would involve horse shaped objects, powered by steam, pulling along conventional carts. It wasn't until later developments that we understood the function of transportation as divorced from the form.

I started talking about Steam Horses originally in the context of MOOCs, which was a classic Steam Horse idea.

No, the code is actually almost always correct. The way it’s added is probably not what you’re going to like, if you know your code base well enough. You know there’s some ceremony about where things are added, how they are named, how much comments you’d like to add and where exactly. Stuff like that seems to irritate people like me when not being done right by the agent, and it seems to fail even if it’s in the AGENTS.md.

> If you were to give human developers the same amount of feature/scope documentation you would also see your productivity skyrocket.

Almost 2 decades in IT and I absolutely do not believe this can ever happen. And if it does, it’s so rare, it’s not even worth talking about it.

BUT: The article is 100% right that I spend a lot of time doing other tasks: Reviewing other teammates' work, interacting with colleagues, planning, ect. AI isn't quite as helpful there. For example, I find that co-pilot code reviews don't add a lot of value; and the AI isn't good at judging a UI.

Maybe we'll get there soon? It's starting to look like the biggest challenge with AI is learning how to use it correctly.

I see so many comments that seem to me like either they don't use standard known processes, or they assume AI doesn't need you to follow the standards.

Can I ship more code and features? Absolutely I can, if I have a good set of requirements, and thorough testing. All AI written code needs to be reviewed and tested, and should be in discrete commits and pull requests, anyone pushing a PR with thousands of lines of code is a red flag, you wouldn't do it without AI, why would you do it with AI? Major rewrites / refactors are the only known exception, and even then I would argue that these should still have discrete commits you can switch to so you can see how things changed, and make a more informed decision.

If you show me a massive one shot commit or PR I will deny it. Break it down into bits a normal developer can audit.

In modern software development, there is no destination. On a 2-week basis, the business decides to change what the software is supposed to do. New features. New integrations. Changed features. Upgraded/replaced components. Larger scale. Different hosting.

Over years, the software is fundamentally altered. Quality and testing goes out the window. There's a constant slog, not only of trying to deal with modifications in an ad-hoc way, but also in fighting entropy. The software becomes a living being, which gets injured, changes its lifestyle, ages. The company is a custodian of a monster, like a zoo keeper, trying to keep the depressed animal alive.

Since humans are creatures of habit, all the same problems will happen with AI. But everything will be a little bit faster, and code reviews will make code a little bit better. But simultaneously, a lack of good tests and the desire for faster deployment will make everything a little bit worse. This push and pull will result in about the same level of software quality, but moving slightly faster. So in the end we will have a faster process. But nobody will really notice, because the rest remains a slog. We will all probably get burnt out faster.

It's complex for a reason, and you can't remove the complexity without removing the reasons. You can't solve business problems with tools.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s what dang did over the course of several years.

It’s taken a few weeks. I started right around May, and now it’s able to render large HN threads (900+ comments) within a factor of five of production HN performance. (Thank you to dang for giving actual performance numbers to compare against.)

A couple days ago, mostly out of curiosity, I ran Claude with “/goal make this as fast as HN.” Somewhat surprisingly, it got the job done within a couple hours. I kept the experiment on separate branches, because the code is a mess, just like all AI generated code starts as. But the remarkable part is that it worked, and I can technically claim to have recreated HN within a few weeks.

The real work is in the specifications. My port of HN is missing around a hundred features. Things from favorited comments, to hiding threads, to being able to unvote and re-vote.

But catching up to HN is clearly a matter of effort (time spent actually working on the problem with Claude), not complexity. Each feature in isolation is relatively easy. Getting them all done within a short time span without ruining the codebase is the hard part. And I think that’s where a lot of people get tripped up: you can do a lot, but you have to manage it tightly, or else the codebase explodes into an unreadable mess.

It’s true that if you don’t do that crucial step of “manage the results”, you’ll end up making more work for yourself in the long run, by a large factor. But it’s also true that AI sped me up so much that I was able to do in weeks what would’ve otherwise taken years (and did take dang years). I’m not claiming parity, just that I got close enough to be an interesting comparison point.

AI can clearly accelerate us. But we need to be disciplined in how we use it, just like any other new tool. That doesn’t change the fact that it does work, and I think people might be underestimating how good the results can be.

I tell them "Us engineers will probably be able to deliver some of our stuff faster but it won't have even a slight effect on the actual deliverable because we've never been the bottle neck", it's the fact that the process to get an S3 bucket allocated takes (not exaggerating) 4 weeks there.

So well said.

AI is unveiling how the bureaucracy is the slow part.

> Software development is about translating a problem into a solution that a computer can understand and automatically resolve. Preferably in a secure and scalable way.

True, meanwhile software engineering puts optional bit into the requirements bucket. (ie. Secure & Scalable)

---

For the problem description and gathering requirements sentiment; I don't think we'll _ever_ have a 100% proper way of doing this. If we did, we'd basically solve any and all problems in the world.

Nevertheless, I think AI can help with investigating and exploring the problem space. Especially when the problem is an already solved thing that the prompter hasn't gained enough expertise yet.

Moreover, I think (and keep mentioning) we will see different kind of models in the near future. Those would be more specialized per industry, per language (both programming and human languages), even per field.

Those will open up newer areas for employment & job market. Something like an "AI-trainer" but more of a knowledge-worker style. Although this can also be automated with LLMs, the limits on context length/size plus amount of compute required to re-train the models to iterate faster both are quite heavy.

Another aspect that is not captured here is that the lawyers and subject matter experts will also be using AI to speed up their parts.

^ this statement is false. typing infinitely fast would make software development much faster.

typing infinitely fast would not make shipping useful products and features instantaneous, because there is product, technical, and organizational uncertainty that requires iteration and "cross functional collaboration" to figure out.

but ai can make each iteration step a lot faster.

^ I say shouldn’t because I work in research engineering. Most of the needs of our users are pretty unique. We’ve had people come in and try and specify every piece of work, -and ended up building a crud app no one wanted or used.

Programming is a logical circuit breaker. There is a wide range of incompleteness that halts development or puts the solutions in an unpublishable state.

A product person has no compiler, no RAM, no database, no state machine. There is nothing that can fail. There are probably strategies to weed out some issues, but none will be perfect.

We need to combine reality with computers. Computers set the constraints and we can only check if we are in bounds of the constraints by solving the problems with computers.

Oddly enough AI has so far nothing to offer to improve the "product people" problems.

> We are now talking about software development, but this is applicable to all processes that take longer than you would like.

Indeed, it's kind of a generalized version of Amdahl's law. Since we only speed up a portion of the work, there are upper bounds on time saved. Worse, work in progress tends to bunch up at a specific point: code review. A coworker of mine literally complained two months ago now that nobody was reviewing code (and that it was blocking his work). I'm not sure review delay has actually gotten better since.

> Yes, AI can generate code quickly (whether that’s a good thing is open for debate), but that doesn’t mean it’s generating the correct code.

It really depends on what you asked it to do. Add a new feature? I wouldn't touch that code with a 10 foot pole. Create a service with an example of another service in your project that does something similar? It is going to nail that pretty much every time in 2026.

Someone else put it really well: use LLMs as a fast typer, not a fast thinker. Don't have it generate any code you can't verify at a glance. Call in small completions that don't span more than a couple files, everything else is vibe coding.

To some extent, we tell as many lies as we can get away with. Some answers are more convenient then others.

"Why" this is taking so long, like "why did this fail?" are prone to broadly agreed lies. Sometimes this is for obvious blame liability reasons. Often, this is because the lie conflicts with some "meta."

One such fallacy is the idea that software=value. Code= money, because it cost money to write. Features=revenue. Etc.

Irl.. startups produce features very quickly because they actually need features. They start with zero features.

But... LinkedIn, visa or even Facebook.... What they are short on is opportunities to develop code with value. Ie... Something that will increase revenue.

FB aren't resource constrained. They're demand constrained. If there were a "write code, make revenue" opportunity available... they'd have taken it already.

This totally conflicts with the experience of working somewhere. That's because you have wishlists, road maps and deadlines.... and it always appears that demand for code is sky high.

The human their cumulative experience over a career of the nuances behind every decision and their evolved context at their given company. This context allows them to take that one-line spec and extract tons of detail from it by knowing who wrote the ticket, what was the "trigger" for the ticket, what other work is being done in tandem that might need to be incorporated, etc.

LLMs can be given this context but it's a manual process of transcription into its prompt/memory/skills and that content must be continually updated and refined. It just pushes lots of work to spec writing from the more intuitive nature of feature development a lot of us have a level of mastery over. Then you must constantly have a back-and-forth to refine the output.

Any senior engineer knows that a lot of that communication is wasted energy. If I have a good idea of what I'm building I can develop the feature in a focused flow of output that I refine in an almost unconscious way because I don't need to translate intent into words, just code, and that process is incredibly automatic after years of developing software.

When all the effort is placed into writing specs, re-prompting and then reviewing (often over and over again), that intuitive and automatic ability to build software degrades. Think of a time when you were mostly focused on PR reviews and not contributing to a project. You may have been able to help developers build better code, but if you were to jump into that project to contribute, there would be a real and painful effort to re-familiarize yourself and reconstruct that intuitive familiarity of the project.

LLMs have many very useful qualities but so far I fear an over reliance on them can be more a hinderance than a benefit.

The primary issue is simply that developers are the most immediately impacted by this technology. The combination of being able to adopt, willing to adopt, and the tech actually being incredibly good at developer related concerns is unique. The rest of the business will eventually catch up. I'm watching it happen in real time. It is agonizingly slow in most places, but it is happening.

The developers being able to drain a one year long work queue in an afternoon is meaningless if the rest of the business cannot absorb the effects of that work in the same timeframe. The business will not leave your idle work queue on the table for long though. Keep pulling a vacuum on them and they will fill the space eventually.

Once tooling (e.g. agent harnesses, external tools) becomes more mature and consistent, the other 2 will become less of a bottleneck.

If I were to take a gamble here, I would argue that development will at one point reach the more ideal scenario, whereas the project planning, the scoping, will become longer. Also, the documentation section will take almost the same as the development, slightly longer at the edges.

The new ai-assisted era will most likely push companies to adopt a Waterfall management, rather than an Agile one.

Another option is that lower software costs would significantly reduce the cost of whatever non-software product the software supports (manufactured good, electricity, services, telecom etc.) but I don't know in which industry the cost of software is a large portion of the overall product cost.

And there's another thing. A company that makes tractors can't produce food without land. A company that makes metal machining equipment can't make cars without the raw materials. But a software company that makes software that automatically makes software could just produce the result software itself rather than sell the software-making software. If AI ever reaches the point it makes software at a marginal cost that's not much higher than the cost of the AI itself, what would be the incentive of selling that AI?

- shift towards throughput-oriented vs latency-oriented. Can juggle more tasks, but increasingly hard to speed up individual ones.

- strong scaling is tough. Might even see slowdowns for individual tasks, so reliable benefits come from being able to juggle more and eat the per-task inefficiency

- amdahl's law: we can't speed up tasks beyond their longest sequential (human) unit, so our work becomes identifying those bits and working on them. Related: you can buy bandwidth, but you can't buy latency

The way AI makes your processes go faster will have little to do with cutting software development time in itself, but by letting an organization be made with fewer people, which in itself lowers your misalignment issues. A giant company of 200K people will still be about as messy as one today, but you might be able to do a lot more with the same number of people, just like a lone programmer today, without AI, already does quite a bit more than anyone could do by themselves the 80s.

Maybe some of the advantages are that you don't need quite as many developers, or maybe you can use a smaller marketing team, or you don't need to spend that much time answering questions, because an LLM is doing it for you, and it's tracking what it's been asked of it, turning the questions into product research. Either way, the gains come from being able to run leaner, and therefore minimizing organizational misalignment.

This is how I felt when I first started seeing people discuss things like AGENTS.md etc.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736...

> "faster typing won't make you faster".....

I understand a Deloitte consultant has specific incentives. But let's first try to answer a baseline question: why do some companies have thousands of software engineers? What do they all do?

And then, a follow-up: what is actually the bottleneck at most companies? What causes "requirements gathering" to take long?

You know, typing fast and accurately is kind of important.

The new speed skill that developers now need is speed reading. LLMs just make copious amounts of output (from tests, documentation, diagnostics). They also produce code so quickly that a skill for focusing on weak points is so important.

Also, I have the impression that LLMs bring some gains or benefits for individuals but not relevant enough at the organization level.

We have a person who wants, effectively, a formatted report generated on demand from four sources. The current interface is four different programs, all of which were written by different groups inside the corp, but they also all draw from the same or similar databases. There's a unified login, but each interface has its own permissions.

The company brings in an AI initiative and soon enough drops all security restrictions for the AI's access to the databases. The new formatted report gets generated through the use of a few tens of thousands of tokens each time, and about 5% of the time synthesizes non-existent data.

A competent DBA and application programmer could have spent a week doing the same thing, producing a program which would do the job faster, cheaper (at run-time), secure and in a way which could be extended and debugged.

But DBA and application programmer time is expensive up-front and the execs are gung-ho about the stock-price now that they are hip and trendy.

    > ...but that doesn’t mean it’s generating the correct code.

Before, when there was the notion that "building is expensive", product teams would think things through, do user interviews up-front, actually do discovery around the customer + business context + underlying human process being facilitated with software.

This has shortened the cycle to first working prototype, but I'd guess that in the longer scale, it extends the time to final product because more time is wasted shifting the deliverable and experience on the user during this process of discovery versus nailing most of the product experience in big, stable chunks through design.

At the end of the day, there is a hidden cost to fast iterative shifts on the fundamental design of the software intended for humans to use and for which humans are responsible for operation. First is the cost on the end users who have to stop, provide feedback, and then retrain on each cycle. Second is that such compounding complexities in the underlying implementation as product learns requirements and vibe-codes the solution creates a system that becomes very challenging for humans to operationalize and maintain.

Ultimately, I think the bookends of the software development process are being neglected (as author points out) to the detriment of both the end users and the teams that end up supporting the software. I do wonder if we're entering an "Ikea era" of software where we should just treat everything as disposable artifacts instead.

However, while the engineering team successfully fast tracked development, UAT, and production testing largely thanks to AI other departments only began digging deeper into the project toward the end of April. To be fair, they do use AI in their workflows to some extent, but they haven't adapted their processes to keep pace with engineering's increased productivity.

In my opinion, this lag is mostly because many employees in those departments are older and hesitant to change their routines. While I understand that resistance to change is a natural human trait, what comes to my mind is this beautiful German adage, "Wer nicht mit der Zeit geht, geht mit der Zeit" which loosely translates to, "Who doesn't change with time is left behind by time"

The proper implementation and design still take time, but still faster in systems with a lot of available resources online.

I get most value from them when I'm asking it to either fill in the blanks of something already half implemented or when I need some feature in a given context/language that only exists in other languages

Everything is OK, but the size of Gantt chart should be expanded.

I am finding that lately I do not allow LLMs to write any code I am interested in maintaining. Or if they do, I have to micromanage them and it usually takes longer. They produce mediocre solutions, and often add redundant state ("Why did you add that state?" "Because we might need it in the future")

That said, they are extremely good at:

- Dev tools: creating debug tooling, debug screens, scripts that get the job done - Auxiliary development: landing pages, "what's new" screens, tedious boilerplate, gathering strings for localization - Prototyping: building full implementations quickly so you can see all the problems rather than having to anticipate them - Pure transformation: porting from one language or paradigm to another

So while I agree with the article that the actual spec of the feature you are building needs just as much human thought, regardless of AI, the speed-ups around that are worth exploring

An example I have from a recent feature development is adding CarPlay support to an existing app. We could have talked about it and designed it for weeks, but with an LLM I was able to get it running in my car in an hour, go for a drive, and feel it to understand whether it was a valuable direction.

The code was a mess, most of it had to be thrown away, and the LLM couldn't even get the initial build functional (not much CarPlay training data, I expect). But it was an accelerator to answer the question "is it worth investing more time in this?"

The assumption is that there’s no way to extract speed and accuracy matching business models.

This isn’t obviously false to the majority of dev/arch’s because most are vibe-coding, but it is extremely obvious to the minority that has focused on accuracy first THEN speed.

https://devarch.ai/

Feature development could take minutes to hours depending on how you iterate it. These days, all we do now is just think of a feature and add it within an hour using AI. We have a process that is a year old now that is fixing bugs that would have taken us hours or days and it spits out a fix in about 10-15 minutes that is 95% accurate. 5% is garbage, but 24 months ago, 95% of it was garbage so the progress is staggering. The longest pole is code review which is all human, but that will all be automated soon.

Not everything will be much faster, but most processes will be 1-3 orders of magnitude faster. To ignore this or find excuses why LLMs/AI won't speed things up or remove the need for large swathes of humans is delusional and cope-ism.

There's no point in falling under the illusion that they'll finally get it now. This will all fall on deaf ears. They're convinced they're automating us out of existence when in fact they'll need the services of people who can surf complex systems more than ever.

We will be able to do more than ever and potentially faster. The issue remains that most of the things these people ask us to do and want us to do and pay us to do remains basically stupid and as TFA points out, the last mile of getting shit properly shipped isn't going to speed up. It's going to slow down.

If you want to see what happens when you put people in charge who sincerely believe in the "AI automates SWEs out of existence" mantra, take a look at the code quality of Claude Code and the recent "bun rewrite in Rust" fiasco.

>Process blocked on human inputs

Have AI check chat, email, issue tracker and see who it's blocked on and what latest status is. It may not save a huge amount of time but it can dig through the info pretty quick.

>Exploration

Once again, have it scour issue tracker, chat, customer suggestions, product documentation and summarize history and current status. Much quicker than setting up new meetings to try to rediscover and organize existing info.

Another use case, have agent build prototype, hand to people, have AI summarize and integrate feedback.

Claude or ChatGPT + Slack MCP + Jira MCP + Google Docs MCP + internal knowledgebase MCP + gh (GitHub) CLI + Datadog MCP--really 1 MCP per process in the Gantt chart--has been a huge boost at work just digging through context scattered all over the place and summarizing.

That said, it definitely still needs supervision and hand holding along the way

My hypothesis is that AI greatly accelerates only a small portion of development. It's pretty effing great at prototypes. But the net acceleration factor is just not that large currently.

Opus has been out for ~6 months. If AI were a net 100x multiplier then we'd be seeing what previously took 5 years ship in just 2.6 weeks. This is objectively not happening.

- People need to be trained to use AI in ways that we don’t call slop, meaning half is made up by the LLM

- To this effect, LLMs should be trained to ask for more input before offering any kind of final output

...but yeah most organizational processes & people aren't set up for leveraging it and roll out will be slow (same on learning where it does / doesn't work).

No. AI is used all the way from the very start to the very end and after.

The cost of a subscription is somewhat offset by being guaranteed income regardless of usage, following the financial models of gyms. Whilst api costs represent both the convenience of on-demand pricing and the scale for applications with many users.

Further, the costs of api and subscriptions need to cover the operating costs of the business, the massive SOTA training costs as well as the costs of inference.

The true cost of serving tokens is buried in all of that in these enormous, opaque companies.

Careful who you share this information with- better to roll with the kool-aid drinkers when they're holding the cards.

It might be the ultimate tool of disruption.

People have to stop promoting this narrative of the AI doesn’t make you move faster as it’s not helping anybody.

I get it. We all worked hard for our skills and it’s really difficult watching them get automated away, but it’s been this way since the printing press assembly lines and the industrial revolution itself. Things change, and you have to adapt to them and stop thinking about it from a centric point of view. The narrative people should be pushing is that you can build great things with AI.

Of course you might not have a job for a while and yes, that’s a big deal but it doesn’t mean that AI is wrong or stupid. It means you have to adapt.

I think many things that were true prior to AI are still true or more so today, but new workflows and processes altogether are needed. I suspect that comprehensive, detailed planning and specification documentation must be assembled in advance of beginning code (akin to waterfall) when working with AI agents. Furthermore, I still believe customers and other key stakeholders need to be involved early and often so that the product can iterate towards a better ultimate end state (i.e., agile). Unlike prior to AI, it's completely plausible to implement both types of approaches, and they aren't mutually exclusive. We can do comprehensive, exhaustive, thorough planning and specification documentation prior to handing off to dedicated engineering and products teams, AND we can work quickly and iteratively via sprints that aim for frequent meetings and updates with the stakeholders that matter.

I also think the same validation gates that mattered before -- linting, SASTs, but most importantly, comprehensive automated testing that gets run locally and in CI/CD and is regularly expanded to cover all expectations about the behavior and structure of newly-implemented functionality -- continue to matter now, more than ever.

New tools and processes also must be built to make human review, the single biggest bottleneck in software development today, more simplified and streamlined, and less taxing. I think tools like CodeRabbit and Qodo can help automate and expedite the code-review and approval processes, but they would be even better if they were working off more surgical and tiny edits. Bloated, verbose AI-generated code edits are the core problem here. Process management techniques to mitigate the problem of AI code overload can prohibit the submission of AI-generated PRs, require senior engineer approval of any PRs prior to merging, or block the maximum number of lines or changes made. More sophisticated processes like Graphite's stacking of PRs are genuinely helpful in breaking down massive PRs into smaller chunks.

Finally, precision-editing tools for AI coding assistants like HIC Mouse (full disclosure, my project) that move beyond the existing options available to AI agents of whole-file replacement or exact string-replacement to enable agents at the editing-tool layer to perform surgical, tiny changes that don't touch any unrelated content, giving agents specialized visibility, recovery, and next-step guidance mechanisms that safeguard AI workflows, can materially reduce AI code slop by alleviating burdens upstream of code reviewers, both automated and human.

The bottom line: Shipping secure, production-grade code was never easy and always took a long time. It's not necessarily easier now just because certain aspects to the overall process can be generated much more rapidly. Arguably, the hardest parts like human review and approval are much harder now -- not easier. Solutions will take hard work and must be tested in the crucible of real-world enterprise usage. I am guessing that companies that deploy successful processes will be wildly profitable. Those that don't, including well-established incumbents, will fail. I do think AI absolutely can give organizations a game-changing boost in development velocity of genuinely high-quality code that might even be better than anything ever created previously. I also fully agree with the author that for many organizations, AI will not make their processes go faster and may even slow things down.

LLMs are not helpful, they make everything worse. They make you worse, or reduce you to average at best. I really just don't see what ya'll are seeing. I have access to every model with no limits, Its not issue of "holding it correctly" I can assure you, I've tried.

Yes it can create very small programs with low complexity, but anything of any size ends up as a literal Eldritch horror or with so many subtle bugs that make life miserable. I actually hate all of you that are pushing it onto people, its such a lie.