Points from the article.

1. The code is garbage and this means the end of software.

Now try maintaining it.

2. Code doesn’t matter (the same point restated).

No, we shouldn’t accept garbage code that breaks e.g. login as an acceptable cost of business.

3. It’s about product market fit.

OK, but what happens after product market fit when your code is hot garbage that nobody understands?

4. Anthropic can’t defend the copyright of their leaked code.

This I agree with and they are hoist by their own petard. Would anyone want the garbage though?

5. This leak doesn’t matter

I agree with the author but for different reasons - the value is the models, which are incredibly expensive to train, not the badly written scaffold surrounding it.

We also should not mistake current market value for use value.

Unlike the author who seems to have fully signed up for the LLM hype train I don’t see this as meaning code is dead, it’s an illustration of where fully relying on generative AI will take you - to a garbage unmaintainable mess which must be a nightmare to work with for humans or LLMs.

What exactly makes you say that "the author who seems to have fully signed up for the LLM hype train"?

I feel the author is just stating the obvious: code quality has very little to do with whether a product succeeds