> 1) There exists a threshold, only identifiable in retrospect, past which it would have been faster to locate or write the code yourself than to navigate the LLM's correction loop or otherwise ensure one-shot success.

I can run multiple agents at once, across multiple code bases (or the same codebase but multiple different branches), doing the same or different things. You absolutely can't keep up with that. Maybe the one singular task you were working on, sure, but the fact that I can work on multiple different things without the same cognitive load will blow you out of the water.

> 2) The intuition and motivations of LLMs derive from a latent space that the LLM cannot actually access. I cannot get a reliable answer on why the LLM chose the approaches it did; it can only retroactively confabulate. Unlike human developers who can recall off-hand, or at least review associated tickets and meeting notes to jog their memory. The LLM prompter always documenting sufficiently to bridge this LLM provenance gap hits rub #1.

Tell the LLM to document in comments why it did things. Human developers often leave and then people with no knowledge of their codebase or their "whys" are even around to give details. Devs are notoriously terrible about documentation.

> 3) Gradually building prompt dependency where one's ability to take over from the LLM declines and one can no longer answer questions or develop at the same velocity themselves.

You can't develop at the same velocity, so drop that assumption now. There's all kinds of lower abstractions that you build on top of that you probably can't explain currently.

> 4) My development costs increasingly being determined by the AI labs and hardware vendors they partner with. Particularly when the former will need to increase prices dramatically over the coming years to break even with even 2025 economics.

You aren't keeping up with the actual economics. This shit is technically profitable, the unprofitable part is the ongoing battle between LLM providers to have the best model. They know software in the past has often been winner takes all so they're all trying to win.