> Eventually it was easier just to quit fighting it and let it do things the way it wanted.

I wouldn't have believed it a few tears ago if you told me the industry would one day, in lockstep, decide that shipping more tech-debt is awesome. If the unstated bet doesn't pay off, that is, AI development will outpace the rate it generates cruft, then there will be hell to pay.

As someone who's been commissioned many times before to work on or salvage "rescue projects" with huge amounts of tech debt, I welcome that day. Still not there yet though I am starting to feel the vibes shifting.

This isn't anything new of course. Previously it was with projects built by looking for the cheapest bidder and letting them loose on an ill-defined problem. And you can just imagine what kind of code that produced. Except the scale is much larger.

My favorite example of this was a project that simply stopped working due to the amount of bugs generated from layers upon layers of bad code that was never addressed. That took around 2 years of work to undo. Roughly 6 months to un-break all the functionality and 6 more months to clean up the core and then start building on top.

Don't worry. This will create the demand for even more powerful models that are able to untangle the mess created by previous models.

Once we realize the kind of mess _those_ models created, well, we'll need even more capable models.

It's a variation on the theme of Kernighan insight about the more "clever" you are while coding the harder it will be to debug.

EDIT: Simplicity is a way out but it's hard under normal circumstances, now with this kind of pressure to ship fast because the colleague with the AI chimp can outperform you, aiming at simplicity will require some widespread understanding

> unstated bet

(except where it's been stated, championed, enforced, and ultimated in no unequivocal terms by every executive in the tech industry)