> If you interpret these examples to mean that any person can write down any list of requirements along with any user interface specs, and the AI will consistently produce a satisfactory product, then I’d agree programmers are toast.

I think the road to this is pretty clear now. It’s all about building the harness now such that the AI can write something and get feedback from type checks, automated tests, runtime errors, logs, and other observability tools. The majority of software is fairly standardized UI forms running CRUD operations against some backend or data store and interacting with APIs.

I am also of this opinion that a lot of this can be solved in time with a harness. And whole heartedly agree that there is a class of webapp that has been trivialized that can make a mom and pop shop up to 'enterprise' (80% of our architecture seems to center around the same pattern at my $DAYJOB) run just fine if they accept some of the vibes.

This type of works seems to be happening as a lot of orchestrator projects that pop up here every once in a while, and I've just been waiting for one with a pipeline 'language' malleable enough to work for me that I can then make generic enough for a big class of solutions. I feel doomed to make my own, but I feel like I should do my due diligence.

> The majority of software is fairly standardized UI forms running CRUD operations against some backend or data store and interacting with APIs.

Have you ever look at Debian’s package list?

Most CRUD apps are just a step above forms and reports. But there’s a lot of specific processing that requires careful design. The whole system may be tricky to get right as well. But CRUD UI coding was never an issue.

DDD and various other architecture books and talks are not about CRUD.