> The scary thing is: I have seen professional human developers write worse code.

That's not the scary part. It's the honest part. Yes, we all have (vague) ideas of what good code looks like, and we might know it when we see it but we know what reality looks like.

I find the standard to which we hold AI in that regard slightly puzzling. If I can get the same meh-ish code for way less money and way less time, that's a stark improvement. If the premise is now "no, it also has to be something that I recognize as really good / excellent" then at least let us recognize that we have past the question if it can produce useful code.

I do believe it's amazing what we can build with AI tools today.

But whenever someone advertises how an expert will benefit from it yet they end up with crap, it's a different discussion.

As an expert, I want AI to help me produce code of similar quality faster. Anyone can find a cheaper engineer (maybe five of them?) that can produce 5-10x the code I need at much worse quality.

I will sometimes produce crappy code when I lack the time to produce higher quality code: can AI step in and make me always produce high quality code?

That's a marked improvement I would sign up for, and some seem to tout, yet I have never seen it play out.

In a sense, the world is already full of crappy code used to build crappy products: I never felt we were lacking in that department.

And I can't really rejoice if we end up with even more of it :)

I think there’s a difference in that this is about as good as LLM code is going to get in terms of code quality (as opposed to capability a la agentic functionality). LLM output can only be as good as its training data, and the proliferation of public LLM-generated code will only serve as a further anchor in future training. Humans on the other hand ideally will learn and improve with each code review and if they don’t want to you can replace them (to put it harshly).