> now nobody fully understands what was generated

To be fair, a lot of the on call people being pulled in at 3am before LLMs existed didn't understand the systems they were supporting very well, either. This will definitely make it worse, though.

I think part of charting a safe career path now involves evaluating how strong any given org's culture of understanding the code and stack is. I definitely do not ever want to be in a position again where no one in the whole place knows how something works while the higher-ups are having a meltdown because something critical broke.

People on call will use AI as well. As long as the first AI left enough documentation and implemented traceability, the diagnosing AI should have an easier time proposing a fix. Ideally, AI would prepare the PR or rollback plan. In a utopia, AI would execute it and recover the system until a human wakes up.

Or at least there is something to chat with about the issue at 3am.

it's MUCH worse now, not just because of the massive amount of code generated with zero supervision or very little supervision, but also because of the speed at which the systems grow in function

True, but I think the implication (as I read it) is that AI may be providing more complex solutions than were needed for the problem and perhaps more complex than a human engineer would have provided.

This. I've been a sysadmin for a quarter of a century and have professionally written next to no software. I've debugged every system I've had to support at some point though. It's a very different skill set.