> So the tradeoffs involved are not only about developer time vs. performance, but also correctness.

The "now that producing plausible code is free, verification becomes the bottleneck" people are technically right, of course, but I think they're missing the context that very few projects cared much about correctness to begin with.

The biggest headache I can see right now is just the humans keeping track of all the new code, because it arrives faster than they can digest it.

But I guess "let go of the need to even look at the code" "solves" that problem, for many projects... Strange times!

For example -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- OpenClaw was itself almost entirely written by AI, and the developer bragged about not reading the code. If anything, in this niche, that actually helped the project's success, rather than harming it.

(In the case of Windows 11 recently.. not so much ;)

> The "now that producing plausible code is free, verification becomes the bottleneck" people are technically right, of course, but I think they're missing the context that very few projects cared much about correctness to begin with.

It's certainly hard to find, in consumer-tech, an example of a product that was displaced in the market by a slower moving competitor due to buggy releases. Infamously, "move fast and break things" has been the rule of the land.

In SaaS and B2B deterministic results becomes much more important. There's still bugs, of course, but showstopper bugs are major business risks. And combinatorial state+logic still makes testing a huge tarpit.

The world didn't spend the last century turning customer service agents and business-process-workers into script-following human-robots for no reason, and big parts of it won't want to reintroduce high levels of randmoness... (That's not even necessarily good for any particular consumer - imagine an insurance company with a "claims agent" that got sweet talked into spending hundreds of millions more on things that were legitimate benefits for their customers, but that management wanted to limit whenever possible on technicalities.)