> a lot of _human_ written code was/is less-than-fine. And a lot of human devs didn't understand the context when they wrote it.

I don't think anyone truly disputes this, but I don't think it's a good argument.

If we already had a sort of poor quality output when humans were at the helm, then what can we expect from AI steered by the sort of humans that produced poor quality code?

My guess would be even more poor quality code, at much higher volumes than before. It is impossible for me to see this as an improvement over "some people always made poor quality code"

▲

wiremine 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> then what can we expect from AI steered by the sort of humans that produced poor quality code.

Great point, and I think that's my argument: above-average engineers can now produce more above average code. We don't need as many (any?) below-average developers moving forward.

	▲	bluefirebrand 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's possible, but I think unlikely. For one thing, most managers can't really tell who is above or below average. We still in 2026 have "lines of code" as a usual metric for judging the quality of a dev. So how do you think that will play out in reality?