Because it takes a massive amount of developer work (perhaps more than anything else), and it's very unlikely they either have the ability to attract enough human developers to be able to do it without LLM assistance.

Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficult nowadays, especially if they aren't paying them.

>Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense.

Humans have been doing this for the better parts of 5 decades now. Don't assume others rely on LLMs as much as you do.

>Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficult nowadays, especially if they aren't paying them.

I highly doubt that. In fact, I'd take a significant pay cut to move to a company that doesn't use LLMs, if I were forced to use them in my current job.

The LLM has brainwashed so many devs that they now think they are nothing without it.

> Because it takes a massive amount of developer work

You know what else takes "a massive amount of developer work"?

"any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer"

And this is the crux of the matter with using LLMs to generate code for everything but really simple greenfield projects: They don't really speed things up, because everything they produce HAS TO be verified by someone, and that someone HAS TO have the necessary skill to write such code themselves.

LLMs save time on the typing part of programming. Incidentially that part is the least time consuming.